9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also imposed penalty of Rs. 4,93,106/- under Rule 15(3) of CCR read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is providing repair, reconditioning, restoration and decoration services of any motor vehicles, Business Auxiliary Service and Renting of Immovable Property Service. They are also trading HONDA brand two wheelers and its spare parts. The Department entertained a view that the appellant is engaged in trading of goods which is an exempted activity from service tax as per the Negative List and therefore the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant is incorrect and as per Rule 6 of CCR, the credit availed is to be governed by Rule 6(3). Accordingly a show-cause notice dt. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though they are entitled for proportionate credit. He further submitted that the Revenue has considered an isolated case of taking credit on the advertisement expenses during a short spell from 2010-11 which was for the trading division of two wheelers and has generalized the whole issue and has drawn the conclusion that the appellant has taken credit on service used for trading of vehicles during the entire period. He further submitted that the appellants have wrongly taken the credit on advertisement expenses which they are ready to reverse. He further submitted that the Rule 6(3), if at all, is made to be applicable, it can only be for the short period of October 2010 to March 2011 and not from October 2010 to March 2015. He further sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reply that they have not taken any CENVAT credit on any of the input services which is used by the show-room. Further I find that even if Rule 6(3) is applicable, the appellant is required to reverse proportionate credit only which is relating to trading whereas in the impugned order, entire credit has been disallowed which is not permitted under law. Further I find that the Commissioner has not given the personal hearing to the appellant and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. In view of these infirmities, I am of the view that the case needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority who will pass a de novo order after considering the reply of the appellant and also after considering various decision relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
