https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326770 The appeals were allowed as the Member (J) found that the disputed Cenvat Credit was for the differential duty on cylinders used for the supplied wrappers. It was clarified that the supplementary invoice was specifically for the value and duty difference of the already supplied wrappers, making it incorrect to claim that no goods were provided under the supplementary invoice. The Member (J) concluded that the differential value pertained to the wrappers and was not associated with any other transaction. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. en-us Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Nov 2016 14:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326770 The appeals were allowed as the Member (J) found that the disputed Cenvat Credit was for the differential duty on cylinders used for the supplied wrappers. It was clarified that the supplementary invoice was specifically for the value and duty difference of the already supplied wrappers, making it incorrect to claim that no goods were provided under the supplementary invoice. The Member (J) concluded that the differential value pertained to the wrappers and was not associated with any other transaction. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326770