https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110725 Credit under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. and Rule 57AB(2)(c) could not be denied on the footing that the manufacturer was an independent texturiser, because the record also showed licensing and activity as a twister. On that factual basis, the bar on Cenvat credit applied only to a manufacturer engaged solely in texturising without facility to manufacture POY, and that premise was not established. The duty paid on twisted yarn was treated as reversal of the credit taken on POY, so the separate demand under Rule 57H(7A) also failed. Penalty under Section 11AC was not warranted because the notice had not invoked the extended period under Section 11A(1). en-us Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110725 Credit under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. and Rule 57AB(2)(c) could not be denied on the footing that the manufacturer was an independent texturiser, because the record also showed licensing and activity as a twister. On that factual basis, the bar on Cenvat credit applied only to a manufacturer engaged solely in texturising without facility to manufacture POY, and that premise was not established. The duty paid on twisted yarn was treated as reversal of the credit taken on POY, so the separate demand under Rule 57H(7A) also failed. Penalty under Section 11AC was not warranted because the notice had not invoked the extended period under Section 11A(1). Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110725