M\/s. Shanti Gears Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Coimbatore)
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 378 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 6-6-2018
Appeal No. E\/42615\/2017 – Final Order No. 41747 \/ 2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial )
\nShri Sai Prasanth, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri R. Subramaniyan, AC ( AR ) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing gears, gear boxes and accessories. During the course of verification of their accounts, it was noticed that they are also doing trading activity from their factory premises by way of selling inputs\/raw materials purchased from other units and cleared the same to their customers after reversing the duty of the credit availed on the same. According to the department, such activity tantamounts to trading and the assessee is liable to pay an amount of 5% or 6% on the value of trading (“exempted service”) in te<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n added to the definition of exempted service, clarifying that exempted service includes trading. Thus, when the appellants have removed the inputs as such, the same amounts to trading and, therefore, they are liable to pay an amount of 5%\/6% of the value of traded goods. That the impugned order does not call for interference. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n tes the finding of the impugned order. He emphasizes on para 6 of the impugned order. He further submits that all the judgements relied upon by the appellant have been dealt with by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the same have been distinguished. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Shanti Gears Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Coimbatore)Central Excise2018 (6) TMI 378 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 6-6-2018Appeal No. E\/42615\/2017 – Final Order No. 41747 \/ 2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) Shri Sai Prasanth, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC ( … Continue reading “M\/s. Shanti Gears Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Coimbatore)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12094","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12094","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12094"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12094\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12094"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12094"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12094"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. It is seen from the submission made by both sides as well as the records that the appellants have reversed the credit, as under Rule 3(5), when they have cleared the goods as such. In a normal trading activity, the goods which are procured, are sold and there is no question of availing the credit of such goods or clearing them on the payment of duty. In the present case, the appellant has availed credit on the inputs and, in some circumstances, they were not able to use the goods in the manufacture of final products. They have opted to clear the goods as such, under the provision of Rule 3(5) by reversing the credit. The Tribunal, in the c<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The Revenue has demanded the amount under Rule 6 equal to 5%\/6% of the value of the traded goods i.e. steel sheets sold to their vendor. There is no dispute that the said removal is governed by Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is admitted fact that the appellant has cleared the said steel sheets on payment of duty. The department is considering the said clearances as exempted service being a trading activity. I find that though this removal of steel sheets is indeed a trading activity, but the said clearances were made on payment of excise duty. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an exempted service. Rule 6 applies on the t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n