M/s. Mahindra Holiday & Resorts India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 316 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 29-8-2018
Appeal Nos. ST/516/2011 and ST/354/2012 – Final Order Nos. 42324-42325 / 2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri S. Thirumalai,, Advocate for Appellant
Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, Addl. Commr. AR) for Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The issue involved in both these appeals being the same, they are heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. The appellants are engaged in providing taxable services of club or association services and are also registered for services such as health and fitness service, tour operator service, air and railway travel agency service etc. They had availed common input services for taxable service as well as for trading. Since they had not maintained separa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e 15(4) r/w section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994
3.
Date of SCN
596/2006 dated 23.10.2009
217/2011 dated 20.11.2011
4.
Date of OIO
185/2011 dated 17.6.2011
95/2012 dated 19.3.2012
4. He argued that the appellant has reversed the credit as per the formula contained in Rule 6(3A) for computing the credit that has to be reversed attributable to trading. The Explanation so added to Rule 2(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is whether it was provided that trading is an exempted service with effect from 1.4.2011. Corresponding amendment was introduced in Rule 6(3A) wherein the method for computing the amount that has to be reversed in case of trading as an exempted service was also provided. The appellant has adopted the said formula to reverse the credit. However, the demand has been raised on the turnover of the traded goods. The appellant has already suffered VAT on the traded goods and therefore the demand made on turnover traded goods will not sustain. He relied upon the de
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the period prior to 1.4.2011, there was much confusion as to whether trading is an exempted service or can be considered as service at all. In Ruchika Global Interlinks Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2017-VIL-323-MAD-ST, the jurisdictional High Court has held that the trading is to be considered as an exempted service prior to 1.4.2011 also. After going through the records and hearing the submissions made by both sides, we find that the Tribunal in the case of TFL Quinn India (supra) has adopted the formula that has been laid in CENVAT Credit Rules with effect from 1.4.2011 to be more appropriate to be applied for the period prior to 1.4.2011 also. We find ourselves in agreement with such view of the Tribunal. Therefore, in our view, the appellant is required to reverse the credit as per the formula in Rule 6(3D)(c) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of trading. However, the said amount has to be quantified. The appellant also contends that they have reversed the said amoun
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =