9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confusion as to whether credit can be availed in respect of trading activities. The issue was mired in litigation - also, there is no evidence bringing out any positive act of suppression on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty - extended period cannot be invoked - For the very same reasons, the penalty relating to the demand for the normal period cannot sustain - demand for the normal period upheld. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. ST/00210/2011 - Final Order No. 41930 / 2018 - Dated:- 27-6-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Original Authority confirmed the recovery of excess Cenvat Credit of Rs, 58,22,939/- along with interest and imposed penalty with an option to pay reduced penalty of 25% as per proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The proposal in the SCN, for demanding service tax to the tune of ₹ 58,22,939/-, was dropped. Aggrieved by the confirmation of recovery of Cenvat Credit to the tune of ₹ 58,22,939/-, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. The learned Counsel, Shri Muthu Venkataraman, appeared and argued the matter on behalf of the appellant. He submitted that the period involved is from October, 2004 to March, 2008. The appellant was engaged in trading of LPG cylinders in their own brand name of Caltex . The alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f exempted services was introduced to settle the confusion as to whether trading is an exempted service or not. He argued that the demand for the extended period may be set aside and also prayed to set aside the penalties for the normal period. 3. The learned AR, Shri B. Balamurugan, supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant was engaged in trading of LPG cylinders using their brand name Caltex as well as rendering packing and storage services to M/s. BPCL. They have availed common input services for the trading activity of LPG cylinders in their brand name as well as for providing output services of packing and storing for BPCL. The appellant was fully aware that they are not eligible for credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s placed before us as well as taking note of the amendment brought forth in the definition of exempted service w.e.f. 01.04.2011, we cannot deny the fact that there was much confusion as to whether credit can be availed in respect of trading activities. The issue was mired in litigation. For this reason, we find that the extended period is not invocable. There is no evidence bringing out any positive act of suppression on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty. We, therefore, hold that the demand for the extended period cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. For the very same reasons, the penalty relating to the demand for the normal period cannot sustain and we set aside the same. 5.2 From the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
