9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... audit wherein noticed that in addition to its main activity of manufacture of dutiable goods, the appellant was also doing trading activity from its factory premises and it was found to be selling raw materials like furan resins, furring sheets, separate coat etc., purchased from other units and cleared to its customers after reversing the credit of duty availed. It was the further case of the Revenue that they further noticed that the appellant was availing credit on the input services such as security services, manpower supply services, courier services etc., which were used for both the manufacturing activity as well as trading of goods (exempted services) which according to the department were consumed by the appellants to carry out the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs were cleared for further manufacturing to its vendors mainly to the job workers on payment of duty which would be returned to its factory for further manufacturing of final dutiable products. The assessee by referring to Rule 3 (5) of CCR, 2004, pleaded before the adjudicating authority that the interpretation sought to be adopted by the Revenue as trading activity was not justified. The adjudicating authority vide his order dated 26.12.2016 passed the OIO wherein he has proceeded to demand duty along with appropriate interest and penalty as proposed in the SCN. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal by upholding the order of the adjudicating authority. Seriously aggrieved by the same, the appellant is now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also placed reliance on the order of CESTAT's Principal Bench, New Delhi and CESTAT, Regional Bench, Allahabad in the cases of CCE, Ghaziabad Vs. UP Telelinks - 2015 (329) ELT 888 (Tri.-Delhi) and CCE, Ghaziabad Vs. Mahaveer Cylinders Ltd. - 2016 (341) ELT 361 (Tri.-All.). 5. Per contra, the Ld. AR, Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC, vehemently contended that the appellant was carrying on trading activity and he also has relied on the findings of the lower authorities in his support. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the facts on record. 7. I find that the department has not disputed the fact that the appellant had removed the inputs as such to its sister concern by reversing the credit availed on such inputs as per Rule 3 (5) of CCR, 2004. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
