Sulekha Beevi C.S. ORDER
Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J)
1. Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing 'Beauty Treatment Service' and 'Health Club and Fitness Service'. They are also engaged in trading activity and selling their products, mainly cosmetics, to their customers. Their trading activity was deemed to be an exempted service with effect from 01.04.2011.
2.1 Since appellants were using common inputs/input services for their trading activity also, the Department was of the view that they are not eligible to avail the entire Credit. Though the appellants had reversed Credit as per Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004, the Department took the view that the appellant has to pay 5%/6% respectively of the value of exempted services, as required under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CCR, 2004.
2.2 Show Cause Notices were issued for different periods raising the above allegations and proposing to demand the differential tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Orders dated 25.11.2016 and 30.07.2018, upheld the same. Hence, these appeals.
3.1 On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Consultant Shri Abhinav Kalra submitted that the appellant has been using common input services as well as inputs for trading as well as for providing output services. They have been reversing the proportionate Credit as applicable under Rule 6(3)(ii) as provided under the CCR, 2004. Thus, the appellant has reversed the Credit amount of Rs. 19,879/- in Appeal No. ST/40366/2017, wherein the impugned Order has confirmed a demand of Rs. 31,600/- holding that the appellant is liable to pay an amount of 6% of the value of the exempted services.
3.2 He argued that though the appellant had been maintaining separate accounts, in order to absolve confusion they have opted to reverse the proportionate Credit relating to trading. Thus, they have reversed an amount of Rs. 19,879/- for the period from July 2012 to October 2013. The Department does not dispute the fact that whether the amount so reversed is erroneous as per the application of formula under Rule 6(3A). However, the demand is made by alleging that the appellant has to pay 6% of the value of exempted services; that this is erroneous interpretation of law.
3.3 He argued that the appellants had written a letter dated 16.05.2013 to the Superintendent of Service Tax and Central Excise, Range-II Division, Chennai-IV, informing that they have not been availing the Credit on the proportionate value of trading activity. Further, they had disclosed the entire reversal of Credit in their ST-3 returns as well as their trial balance sheet.
3.4 He relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune-I - MANU/CM/0203/2015 : 2015 (40) S.T.R. 381 (Tri. - Mum.) to argue that when the appellant has reversed the Credit as per Rule 6(3A)(ii) of the CCR, 2004, the Department cannot insist that the appellant has to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of........