TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicants have reversed the proportionate input service credit and therefore, it is a fit case for waiver of predeposit of the entire amount along with interest and penalty. In view of the above, we waive pre-deposit of the entire amount along with interest and penalty and stayed its recovery till the disposal of the appeal - Stay granted. - E/S/40983, 40985/2013 in E/41349 - 41350/2013 - MISC. ORDER No. 42165-42166 / 2014 - Dated:- 23-10-2014 - Shri P. K. Das And Shri R. Periasami,JJ. For the Applicant : Shri Aravind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. For the Respondent : Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) ORDER Per: P.K. Das The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of Automotive Grade Lubricants and Specialty Oils classi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Explanation in Rule 2(e) of CCR by notification No. 3/2011-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2011 w.e.f. 01.04.2011, exempted goods includes trading. It is contended that prior to 01.04.2011, trading goods cannot be treated as exempted service and therefore both the show cause notices cannot be sustained on the preliminary submission. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Pune 2014-TIOL-476-CESTAT-MUM and Orion Appliances Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2010 (19) STR 205 (Tri. Ahmd.). He further submits that in any event, they have reversed the proportionate credit on input service in respect of the clearances of trading goods of the Chennai unit, as duly recorded in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsed/paid the amount based on the formula as per Rule 6(3A) (b) (ii) of CCR,2004. It is contended by the applicant that the total amount payable worked out to be ₹ 13,29,760/- with interest. Thus, it is apparent from the record that the applicant reversed the proportionate input service credit used in the clearance of trading goods, even before the issue of the show cause notice. The Ld. Sr. Advocate also submitted that the entire demand is barred by limitation. We find that the applicant in their reply to the show cause notice categorically disputed the quantification of the demand in so far as that the demand was determined on the total value of the trading turnover of the entire company, which is ex-facie bad in law. We find that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
