https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387665 The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to comply with Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The demand for service tax and penalties for the period April 2008 to March 2012 was deemed unsustainable as the services were not taxable during that time. The Tribunal also ruled that the appellant's services did not qualify as exempted services under the CCR, thus rejecting the demand for the period April 2012 to March 2013. The extended limitation period for the demand was found inapplicable due to interpretational issues. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387665 The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to comply with Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The demand for service tax and penalties for the period April 2008 to March 2012 was deemed unsustainable as the services were not taxable during that time. The Tribunal also ruled that the appellant's services did not qualify as exempted services under the CCR, thus rejecting the demand for the period April 2012 to March 2013. The extended limitation period for the demand was found inapplicable due to interpretational issues. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387665