Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 249 - AT - Central ExciseAvailment of CENVAT Credit - Trading activity - Held that:- Explanation added to the Rule 2(e) w.e.f. 1.4.2011 has to be read with Explanation I (c) added to sub-rule 3(d) of the Rule 6 and these provisions, which adversely affect an assessee, cannot be given retrospective effect. The finding of the Commissioner in the impugned order that while the amendment to the definition of exempted service in Rule 2(e) w.e.f. 1.4.2011, by adding an explanation to it, is of clarificatory nature and, therefore, is applicable retrospectively but the provision regarding value of the trading service in Explanation (I)(c ) to sub-rule (3D) of Rule 6, also introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2011, cannot be given retrospective effect and is applicable prospectively and accordingly during the period prior to 01.04.2011, the value of the trading services would be the value of the goods traded on the sale price of the goods is absurd - when the goods traded are the cenvated inputs in respect of which cenvat credit availed, has been reversed as per the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, no reversal of the cenvat credit in respect of the input services like GTA service and transit insurance service availed at the time of receipt of the goods is required in view of the judgment of the Punjab High Court in the case of Punjab Steels (2010 (7) TMI 252 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) and also the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Chitrakoot Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2007 (11) TMI 135 - CESTAT, CHENNAI]. Some cenvated services received may be those which are not connected with receipt of inputs and these services like security, telephone services, sales promotion etc. may have been commonly used for manufacturing as well as trading activity and to the extent some cenvated services were used for trading activities, the cenvat credit would not be admissible. But the amount of cenvat credit to be reversed in proportion to the volume of trading activity has not been quantified by the Department - pre-deposit of ₹ 7 lakhs in addition to the amount already paid would be sufficient for hearing of the appeal - Partial stay granted.
|