Excise credit apportionment under invoice duty split upheld where equal allocation matched the notification and evidence supported the claim.

Equal apportionment of aggregate duty shown in invoices between basic excise duty and Additional Duty of Excise (Textiles) was treated as consistent with Notification No. 17/2000-CE where the invoices reflected duty at 16% ad valorem and the invoice stamp recorded the split. The alleged later affixation of the stamp was rejected for want of evidence, and the common corporate identity of the supplier and recipient units supported the credit claim. On that basis, the credit taken was held admissible, and the duty demand, together with interest and penalty, did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to apportion the aggregate duty shown in the invoices equally between basic excise duty and Additional Duty of Excise (Textiles) and to avail credit accordingly under Notification No. 17/2000-CE dated 01.03.2000, and whether the demand of duty, interest, and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The invoices showed payment of duty at the aggregate rate of 16% ad valorem, and the stamp on the invoices reflected equal apportionment between basic excise duty and Additional Duty of Excise (Textiles) in terms of the notification. The finding that the stamp was affixed later as an afterthought was not supported by evidence. The recipient and supplier units belonged to the same corporate entity, and the apportionment was held to be consistent with the notification, without any demonstrated gain to the appellant from the manner of credit availment.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the credit as taken, and the demand of duty did not survive; interest and penalty also could not be sustained.

---