9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent ORDER The issue involved is that whether the Appellant is required to reverse the cenvat credit on the common input service attributed to the trading activity for the period prior to 1/4/2011 when the trading activity was considered as exempted service, as per rule 2(E) w.e.f. 1.4.2011. 2. Shri S. Chandrasekhar, Dy. Manager of the Appellant Company, submits that Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice in Rule 2 (e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This clearly shows that the law was not clear whether the cenvat credit is admissible on the input service attributed to the trading activity or otherwise. He further submits that it is an undisputed fact that the Appellant had bonafide belief that cenvat credit is admissible as input service against the manufacture of dutiable goods and there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he extended period, i.e. beyond one year. I find that the issue is whether the Appellant was required to reverse the cenvat credit attributed to the trading activity in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The Rules 6 (3) undisputedly applicable in case where the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted final product or taxable and exempted service. As per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of Rule 6, the definition of exempted service was amended and accordingly the trading activity was brought under the 'exempted service' w.e.f. 1.4.2011. This development clearly shows that there was a serious interpretation in respect of Rule 6(3) and to remove the doubts, amendments, effective 1.4.2011, were incorporated. It is also a fact that this issue was involved in various cases, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
