9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not required to pay 5% / 6% of the value of the exempted service as demanded by the Commissioner (A) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and after following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), who modified the original order. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedents and is also contrary to the provisions of Rule 6. She further submitted that the demand of 5% / 6% of the total value of exempted service under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CCR is not sustainable as the appellants have already reversed proportionate credit in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A). She ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of interest and penalty does not arise. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has not exercised the option under Rule 6(3) of CCR and in the absence of an option exercised, the lower authorities have rightly quantified the demand under Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR, 2004. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have already reversed the proportionate CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A) and therefore, he is not required to pay 5% / 6% of the value of the exempted service as demanded by the Commissioner (A). Further, I find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
