https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340852 The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original, ruling in favor of the appellants. It held that trading activity cannot be considered a service, making Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 inapplicable. The demand for recovery of Cenvat credit, interest, and penalties was deemed invalid as the Show Cause Notice failed to prove wrongful utilization of credit. The extended period of limitation for issuing the notice was found unjustified, and personal penalties imposed under Rule 26 were set aside. The appellants were granted consequential relief as per the law. en-us Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Nov 2017 17:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340852 The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original, ruling in favor of the appellants. It held that trading activity cannot be considered a service, making Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 inapplicable. The demand for recovery of Cenvat credit, interest, and penalties was deemed invalid as the Show Cause Notice failed to prove wrongful utilization of credit. The extended period of limitation for issuing the notice was found unjustified, and personal penalties imposed under Rule 26 were set aside. The appellants were granted consequential relief as per the law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340852