https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260154 The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the demand, interest, and penalties imposed by the original authority. The appellant's contentions regarding jurisdiction of the show cause notice, assessment of distribution of credit by the ISD, applicability of Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, recalculation of demand based on Rule 6(3D), time-barred demand, and penalty under Rule 15A were all rejected by the Tribunal. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable due to the appellant's failure to indicate credit availed for trading activities, leading to a penalty of Rs. 5,000 being upheld against the appellant as an ISD. en-us Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 May 2016 10:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260154 The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the demand, interest, and penalties imposed by the original authority. The appellant's contentions regarding jurisdiction of the show cause notice, assessment of distribution of credit by the ISD, applicability of Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, recalculation of demand based on Rule 6(3D), time-barred demand, and penalty under Rule 15A were all rejected by the Tribunal. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable due to the appellant's failure to indicate credit availed for trading activities, leading to a penalty of Rs. 5,000 being upheld against the appellant as an ISD. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260154