9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved 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 aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed 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 Rules was amended. By amendment trading act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 Act and in absence of the ingredient of Sec. 11AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 1-4-2011 and held that there is ambiguity on the issue, there was no intent to evade duty. On this observations, he set aside the penalty under Section 11AC. I also find that as per the fact of the case no malafide established on the part of the appellant therefore ingredients required for invocation of Section 11AC are absent. As per my above discussion coupled with clear findings of the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
