M\/s. NVIS Technology Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Indore
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 877 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 29-5-2018
Excise Appeal No. 50946 of 2018 SM – A\/52085\/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
\nMs. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Appellants
\nShri P Juneja, AR for the Respondent
\nPer Ms. Archana Wadhwa :
\nThe appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and also trading activity. They were availing the benefit of cenvat credit of service tax paid on various services which are common in both the activities.
\n2. Revenue by entertaining a view that trading activity is an exempted service and as such the asses<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n that they have not exercised an option of maintaining separate accounts, in terms of Rule 6(3). As such, they are not under legal obligation to pay such percentage of the value of the goods. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. NVIS Technology Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, IndoreCentral Excise2018 (6) TMI 877 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 29-5-2018Excise Appeal No. 50946 of 2018 SM – A\/52085\/2018-SM[BR]Central ExciseMs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Appellants Shri P Juneja, AR for the Respondent … Continue reading “M\/s. NVIS Technology Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Indore”<\/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-12291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12291","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=12291"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12291\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. I find issue is no more res integra and stand decided in the following Tribunal's decisions:
\n1) M\/s. Zim Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Nagpur [2018 (1) TMI 254 – CESTAT Mumbai];
\n2) CCE, Ghaziabad vs. Avon International Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (5) TMI 1289 -CESTAT Allahabad];
\n3) M\/s. Orient Bell Ltd. & others vs. CCE & ST, NOIDA [2018 (3) TMI 7 – CESTAT Allahabad];
\n4) M\/s. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Raipur [2016 (12) TMI 841-CESTAT, New Delhi]; and
\n5) JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd. vs. CCE, Kolhapur [2018 (2) TMI 137 -CESTAT, Mumbai]
\n5. It <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n