This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Activity of investment in mutual funds cannot be classified as exempted service hence rule 6 of CCR not applicable
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo and Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy (CESTAT Hyderabad)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All CESTAT, CESTAT Hyderabad
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo and Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy (CESTAT Hyderabad)
CESTAT Hyderabad held that the activity of investment in mutual fund does not involve the presence of a service rendered by a service provider towards a recipient of service for some consideration. Accordingly, it cannot be classified as exempted service and hence the very charge for applying Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules could not be sustained.
Facts- The Department, in the course of audit, noticed that the appellant had availed irregular Cenvat Credit on exempted services and on certain...
Author Info
