Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 229 - CESTAT BANGALORECENVAT credit - trading activity - applicability of Rule 6 of CCR - it appeared that the appellant had utilized excess credit - Held that: - since the trading activity is not an exempted service during the relevant period, rule 6 is applicable to the appellant - The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ruchika Global Interlinks [] has considered this issue and has held that trading activity was not amenable to service tax at the relevant period and therefore apportionment as provided in Rule 6(3) (c) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 would get triggered and the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the assessee - demand of duty upheld. Demand of Interest and penalty - Held that: - since the appellant had a bona fide belief that trading is an exempted service even prior to 01/04/201 1 and they had sufficient balance of CENVAT credit during the year 2008-09, they are not liable to pay interest - as far as penalty is concerned, there is no suppression on the part of the appellant and during the relevant time, there were conflicting decisions, penalty also set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
|