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

Cochin International Airport Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax

2017 (12) TMI 389 - CESTAT BANGALORE

CENVAT credit - exempted as well as dutiable services - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR Rule 2004 - non-intimation of option under 6(3A)(a) at the beginning of the year - Held that: - the issue has been settled in favor of the assessee in the case of Aster Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad-III [2016 (6) TMI 866 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], where it was held that the argument of the Revenue that the requirement to intimate the department about the option exercised, is mandatory and t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is directed against the impugned order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is providing taxable services such as Airport service, cargo handling service, storage and ST/20350/2017-SM warehousing service, sale of space or time for advertisements and renting of immovable property service and is also providing exempted services viz. cargo handling services for agric .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8% of the value of exempted services as per Rule 6(3) and after following the due process, the demand was confirmed along with penalty. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner who upheld the order-in-original. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 5. The Learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order demanding 8% of the value of exempted services under Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR Rule 2004 on 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

017-SM 5.1 The Revenue has not disputed the amount determined as per Rule 6(3A)(b)(iii) in the show cause notice and in this adjudication proceedings or in the order-in-appeal he further submitted that non-intimation of option under 6(3A)(a) at the beginning of the year is at the most a procedural deviation and not substantiative violation and further 6(3A)(a) does not specify any time period within which the option Rule 6(3)(ii) should be exercised. 5.3. He further submitted that the Commission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assesse of his substantive benefits. * Aster Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad-III (2016) 43 STR 411 (Tri.-Hyd.); * Foods, Fats & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CCE, Guntur (2011) 22 STR 484 (Tri.-Bang.); * Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I (2015) 40 STR 381 (Tri.-Mumbai); * Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I (2016) 55 GST 394 (New Delhi-CESTAT). 5.4 He further submitted that when there is a violation of procedural rule, then the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked unles .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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