Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 939 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - credit attributable to trading activity - Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 - Held that: - there is no dispute that trading activity is having no nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant, therefore, the said issue is no issue matter. Whether prior to 1.4.2011, the appellant was entitled to avail cenvat credit on common input services when the appellant is involved in the activity of trading as well as manufacturing? - Held that: - for the period prior to 1.4.2011, the appellant is not required to either reverse of cenvat credit attributable to trading activity, or liable to pay @ 6 % of the value of traded goods. Therefore, the demand for the period prior to 1.4.2011 is set-aside. Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not? - Held that: - the appellant was filing the regular ER-1 Returns and availment of cenvat credit was in the knowledge of the department and the case of the revenue is that the revenue came to know of the fact of trading activity to their financial records which is a public records. No other positive evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to alleged suppression of facts on the part of the appellant - extended period not invokable - penalty also not invokable. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for correct quantification of demand for the period within limitation as per formula prescribed under Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|