9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Member Shri Bhanumurthy, Advocate-For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR)-For the Respondent Order Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 23/01/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals)whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods viz. digital panel meters for energy/static, Information Technology Software Harmonic Filter Systems falling under chapter 85/90 of CETA, 1985 and are availing CENVAT credit on capital goods, inputs or input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of verification of the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation in issuing the show-cause notice. He further submitted that the definition of exempted service was amended to include trading only w.e.f. 01/04/201 1 and the same cannot be given retrospective effect. He further submitted that there is no mechanism to determine the value of the trading prior to 01/04/201 1 for the purpose of determining the proportionate credit attributable to trading. He further submitted that the demand is barred by limitation as there was no intention to evade payment of duty. He further submitted that the issue of whether proportionate reversal should be made on trading or not has been debatable issue and the appellant has been served periodical show-cause notices on the issue of eligibility to credit. He also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of limitation on the ground that the assessee has not disclosed the availment of input service credit in respect of trading activities. Further I find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ruchika Global Interlinks (supra) has held that inclusion in explanation to Rule 2(e) viz. trading was without doubt only clarificatory but the same is applicable retrospectively. Further I also find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of HCL Infosystems has observed in para 12 as under:- 12. Show cause notices in both cases were issued invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee had deliberately failed to disclose availment of cenvat credit utilized for trading which clearly does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
