Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Talwar Mobiles Pvt Ltd. Versus CST, Hyderabad And (Vice-Versa)

2017 (9) TMI 891 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

CENAVT credit - services for trading activity prior to 01.04.2011 - whether trading activity exempt or not during the impugned order? - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of M/s. FL Smidth Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise [2014 (12) TMI 699 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that there is a clear finding that the appellant had not disclosed the availment of input service credit on commission in respect of trading activities and it came to the knowledge of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner (AR) for the Department. ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] These appeals are directed against Order in Appeal NoHYD-SVTAX-000-APP-0018-16-17 ST dated 25.04.2016. 2 Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The brief facts of the case, are that the appellant is a registered service provider under "Servicing of Motor Vehicles (SMV)" and "Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) , holder of STC No. AABCT1954QST001. They were engaged sales and service of Hyundai' brand cars, and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vices attributable to trading activity, as prescribed under Rule 6(3A)(c)(III), in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) ibidem; that they failed to do so, and consequently violated the provisions of Rules 6(3)(ii) and 6(3A)(d). meriting recovery of the same under Rule 14 read with proviso to Sec 73(1), along with interest and penalty under Rules6(3A)(e), 14, 15(3) of CCR 2004, read with Sec 75 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. A show cause notice dated 22.10.2013 in C.No.IV/16/312/2010-St.Gr.V [OR No.69/2013-Ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4,58,731 imposed under Sec 78, with option of reduced penalty if paid within the prescribed time limit. The lower authority held inter alia that trading activity was considered as an exempt service even before the insertion of the explanation under Rule 2(e) of the CCR 2004; that the Board clarification at Sl. No.7 of Circular No.943/04/2011-CX [F No.354/73/2011-TRU] clarified the legislative intent; that the ratio of the rulings cited at Para 20 and 22 of the impugned order applied; that the im .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rough the entire case records and submits that prior to 01.04.2011 trading activity was considered as not an exempted service hence entire credit in eligible; subsequent to 01.04.2011 situation is different. Since the period involved in this case is prior to 01.04.2011 he would stick to the arguments made by him. 6. Learned DR submits that Hon'ble High Court of Madras in two cases has held that amendment made on 01.04.2011 is applicable to period prior to 01.04.2011 also, which would mean th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

phs: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the activity of trading to be considered as exempted service for the period prior to 01.04.2011 even the though the same has been identified as an exempted activity only from 01.04.2011? 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of parts of pre-heater and clearing the same to Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd., Dalmiapuram on payment of excise duty. The goods were supplied on the basis of the contract e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

therwords, the value of goods at ₹ 36.04 crores was traded from a third party source and supplied to Dallmia Cement (B) Ltd. and not manufactured by the appellant in their unit. M/s. Adhunik Corporation, Calcutta had received sales commission of ₹ 2.00 crores from the appellant for procuring the above mentioned contract valued at ₹ 41.45 crores. M/s. Adhunik Corporation had paid service tax of ₹ 20,18,000/- and the appellant took credit of the said service tax paid. 8. If .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version