9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that inclusion in explanation to Rule 2(e) viz. trading was without doubt only clarificatory but the same is applicable retrospectively. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/21736/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20399/2018 - Dated:- 20-3-2018 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate Swami Associates Co. - For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Dy. Commissioner(AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 14/09/2017 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 engaged in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 8,72,996/- vide OIO dt 22/05/2014 along with interest and imposed equal penalty under Rule 15(3) of CCR read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who also rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order invoking the extended period of limitation for raising the demand is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Madras High court in the case of Ruchika Global Interlinks Vs. CESTAT [2017-TIOL-123 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2014-TIOL-3183 CESTAT-DEL] 5. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the larger period has rightly been invoked as the appellant has suppressed the facts from the Department and it was detected during the audit. He further submitted that Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of FL Smidth cited supra has held in para 11 regarding the plea of limitation. He also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of HCL Infosystems Ltd. Vs. CC CE, Noida [2014 -TIOL-3183-CESTAT-DEL] wherein also the Tribunal has held that invoking the extended period is perfectly justified and the trading cannot be considered as a service or an exempted service. Learned AR also submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly does not amount to input service used for providing taxable or exempted services; and since trading would not in any event be considered an exempted service, Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that this is a bonafide interpretational error on the part of the assessee and therefore invocation of the extended period is not justifiable. This contention of the assessee does not merit acceptance. Till the fiction was introduced that trading is an exempted service, by the Explanation introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2011 in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, trading which is a sale of goods could not have been considered as a service, a taxable service or an exempted service. The input services (on which cenvat credit was earned by the assessee) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
