9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) has observed that with regard to the credit of goods, the appellant was neither a manufacturer/producer nor a provider of taxable output service, since at the material time trading was neither taxable nor exempted. Moreover, according to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) exempted goods would refer only to the goods manufactured by the appellant, on which no duty was payable, but here the appellant had only bought and sold goods instead of those which were manufactured by it. In view of the above discussions, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has concluded that the appellant was not entitled to credit attributable to credit of goods by virtue of Rule 3 which restricts and allow credit only to the manufacturer of goods or to the provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate authority has accepted the case of the revenue to hold inter-alia that Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) would be applicable only in respect of common goods, that is to say, the credit availed by the appellant on the security services provided for the factory premises as well as trading premises is covered under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 since the appellant had not maintained separate books of account for the common input services. 5. Per Contra, the Learned Assistant Commissioner supported the findings of the lower authorities. 6. Having heard both sides, we find that the only issue to be decided by us is, whether first appellate authority correct in modifying the OIO, by disallowing credit availed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he feeling aggrieved, the department filed appeal before the FAA, i.e., the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the above finding given in OIO and it appears that the revenue also made an issue of non-maintenance of separate books of accounts in so far as the common input services in respect of both the premises were concerned, which was never addressed either in the Show Cause Notice or in the Order-in-Original. But however, no grounds of appeal urged before the FAA is placed before us in this regard. 10. From the impugned order, we find that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has analysed the scope of Rule (3) of CENVAT Credit Rules vis- -vis, the activities carried on by the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) has observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as towards the provision of exempted services alone. Moreover, it is not the case of the revenue that security service was used exclusively in the manufacturing unit or used exclusively in the trading unit of the appellant, but the appellant has all along claimed that the said service was used as a common service in both the units. The amendment to Rule 2(e) was not applicable since the period under dispute is from June 2007 to January 2009 and hence, it is difficult to construe trading activity as an exempted service and that the service in question cannot be held to have been used in the provision of exempted service alone. 12. In view of the above discussions, we are of the clear view that the impugned order of the First Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
