2018 (11) TMI 1223 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – common input services which were consumed for carrying out the activity of manufacturing dutiable goods and also for trading activity – non-maintenance of separate records – Held that:- he appellant seems to have confused with regard to traded goods and trading activity. The traded goods cannot be considered as an exempted goods whereas the trading activity as per Rule 2(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is an exempted service. The appellants do not have a case that they have maintained separate accounts with regard to the common input service used for trading and manufacturing activity – the demand raised is legal and proper and requires no interference.
–
Penalty – Held that:- However, the appellant has been maintaining register with regard to the traded goods on the bonafide belief that they are maintaining separate accounts as provided under Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and has not availed credit on such goods
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ng to demand an amount of ₹ 5,66,811/- being the amount equivalent to 6% / 7% of the value of exempted service for the period January 2012 to March 2016 along with interest and also proposing to impose penalties was issued. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equal penalty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, however, reduced the penalty to ₹ 3,35,403/-. Aggrieved, the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. consultant Shri Gopal Kanakaraj appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the trading activity of the appellant was very little and they were buying and selling raw materials namely Furan Resins, Curing Agents, Strip Cote etc. which were imported. They were maintaining separate accounts of the traded goods and therefore the demand cannot sustain. The ld. consultant also argued that the adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the sho
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e do not find that the adjudication made by the Assistant Commissioner is without jurisdiction. 5.1 The major part of the argument put forward by the ld. consultant is with regard to the import of the goods; that they have maintained separate accounts with regard to the traded goods and therefore they have not been given concessional / allowance with regard to the CVD paid on the goods that were imported. The demand is raised for the reason that trading is an exempted service and that the appellants have used common input services for manufacturing activity and trading activity. The appellant seems to have confused with regard to traded goods and trading activity. The traded goods cannot be considered as an exempted goods whereas the trading activity as per Rule 2(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is an exempted service. The appellants do not have a case that they have maintained separate accounts with regard to the common input service used for trading and manufacturing activity. For th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =