IFCI Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Delhi)
Material Facts
The appellant, a Government of India undertaking providing loans, banking and financial services, challenged an order upholding recovery of CENVAT credit of Rs. 89,84,539/- along with interest and penalties. The dispute covered the period April 2008 to March 2011. The appellant availed CENVAT credit on common input services such as housekeeping, professional consultancy, telephone and internet, courier, advertisement and professional training services. Alongside its taxable services, it purchased and sold shares and securities on its own account. The show cause notice alleged that such activity constituted trading, treated as an exempted service, and that proportionate CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 should have been reversed. During the proceedings, both sides agreed that the appellant’s activity was investment of its own funds and not a service.
Procedural History
A show cause notice dated 21.04.2014 proposed recovery of CENVAT credit under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, together with penalties under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Sections 78, 77(1) and 77(2) of the Finance Act. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the proposals, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. The assessee appealed before the CESTAT Delhi.
