Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 979 - AT - Service TaxDisallowance of CENVAT Credit on Input Services – Service rendered is of sale of vehicles and repairs of the same - Appellant contended that they were not in obligation to maintain separate accounts as per Rule 6(2) as trading is not a service at all and there was no suppression of facts or willful mis-statement to evade duty. Held That:- Trading activity not being a service at all, the appellant is not required to maintain separate accounts as per sub rule (2) of Rule 6 prior to 1.4.2011. So the view of department that the appellant is not entitled to credit for want of maintaining separate account is not correct. At the same time, credit cannot be allowed against trading as it is not either a service falling under Finance Act 1994, manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore that portion of the input service availed for trading is not admissible. - Decision made in the case of Orion Appliances Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2010 (5) TMI 85 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] followed. Extended period of limitation - the issue reveals an interpretational issue - appellant was under the belief that trading not being a service at all there is no requirement to maintain separate accounts. - There is no suppression or wilful misstatement with intention to evade payment of duty thus extended period is not invokable – Decided in favour of the Appellant.
|