2018 (7) TMI 602 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Trading activity – It is the case of the Revenue that during the course of audit of books of accounts of the appellants, the officers of the 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 – Rule 3 (5) of CCR, 2004 – Held 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 – this itself is not sufficient to hold that it is a trading activity.
–
The adjudicating authority shall examine the documents if any furnished by the appellant and pass order – appeal disposed off. – E/42586 – 42587/2017 – 41557-41558/2018 – Dated:- 22-5-2018 – P. DINESHA, Member (Judicial) Shri A. R. Sreenivasan, Manager, for the appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g of goods (exempted services) which according to the department were consumed by the appellants to carry out their duty of manufacture of dutiable goods and also for trading activity which was exempted service. A SCN dated 16.03.2016 was therefore came to be issued on the ground that the appellant was not eligible to avail and utilize the credit in respect of that part of input services consumed for the exempted activity namely trading of goods. It was therefore proposed in the SCN as to why: i) The extended period should not be invoked under Rule 14 of CCR read with Section 11A (4) /11A(5) of CEA,1944 ii) An amount of ₹ 7,49,449/- being the amount equivalent to the specified percentage of the value of clearances of exempted goods during the period from 2011-12 to 2014-15 should not be demanded from them under Rule 14 of CCR read with Section 11A(4)/11A(5) of CEA. iii) the interest as applicable for the delayed payment of the amount mentioned in Sl.No. (ii) above should not be d
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
fied. 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 before this forum. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4.1 On behalf of the appellant, Shri A.R. Sreenivasan, Manager appeared and seriously contended that the lower authorities had clearly mis-understood the facts vis-a-vis the requirements of law. It is no doubt true that the appellant did some trading activity but the same was to an extent of a mere 1%, that too which is supplied to its job workers for processing the products. During the course of hearing, he also relied on the orders of this Court in the case of Sister concern of the appellant, in the case of Lakshmi Ring Travellers (Cbe) Ltd. in Final Order No
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. 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. And this by itself, as held by this Court in the case supra is not sufficient to hold that it is a trading activity. This is also supported by the orders of Tribunal in Lakshmi Ring Travellers (Cbe) Ltd., UP Telelinks and Mahaveer Cylinders Ltd. (supra), relied on by the representative of the appellant. 8. I am therefore of the view that in the light of above observations and judicial pronouncem
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =