2017 (12) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Respondent ORDER The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is required to comply with the provision of Rule 6(3) by making payment at the rate 5% of the value of trading activity being exempted service. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand under Rule 6(3)(b) and imposed penalty under Section 11AC for an amount equal to the demand amount. Being aggrie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore Section 11AC penalty was correctly imposed by the Original Adjudicating authority. 3. On the other hand, Shri. Rajesh Ostwal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that demand of 5% under Rule 6(3) is in respect of trading activity which was neither exempted goods nor exempted service. The issue involved is of interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, subsequently Rule 2(e) of Cenvat Credit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....merit in the defense of the appellants considering the fact that explanation to Rule 2(e) of the CC Rules was added w.e.f. 1-4-2011. This is enough to establish that the matter under consideration was not free from doubt. Considering the ambiguity in the issue I find that the charge of 'intent' cannot be leveled against the appellants. Further, Rule 15(2) ibid is to be read with Sec. 11AC of the A....