9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bonafide belief of the appellant that they were under the impression that their activity is an exempted service and would be able to avail credit by following the procedures under Rule 6 (2) and (3). Further, they have been filing service tax returns regularly and they have been subjected to periodical audit. The appellant cannot be saddled with intention to evade payment of service tax. There is no other evidence brought out by the department to conclude that the appellant is guilty of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax so as to invoke extended period of limitation - SCN is time-barred. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/41268 & 41269/2014 - Final Order No. 40334-40335 / 2018 - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which held that assessee is not eligible to reverse the credit which is availed for providing trading activity. Further, the appellant were under the bonafide belief that trading activity is an exempted service, maintained separate accounts for the common input used in trading activity as well as for providing output service. There was no intention to evade payment of duty and the credit was availed only on the wrong interpretation of the provisions of law by the appellant. Further, the appellants have filed service tax returns regularly. They have disclosed the availment of CENVAT credit on such common inputs and its utilization of output taxable service; that they are subjected to periodical audit, that various service tax issues have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.9.2008 Department audit intimation letter In these circumstances, the question of suppressing the fact or contravention of the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, with an intent to evade payment of service tax does not arise. 3. The ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that trading activity was not an exempted service prior to 1.4.2011. The said activity cannot be considered either as a service or as a process of manufacture. Therefore, credit availed is against law. The issue stands settled by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ruchika Global Interlinks Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai 2017-TIOL-12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns regularly and they have been subjected to periodical audit. Even in CERA audit, the said objection was not raised on the availment of credit on common input services used for trading and taxable outcome service. In such circumstance, the appellant cannot be saddled with intention to evade payment of service tax. There is no other evidence brought out by the department to conclude that the appellant is guilty of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax so as to invoke extended period of limitation. We therefore conclude that the show cause notice is time-barred. 6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed on the ground of limitation, with consequential relief, if any. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
