https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331363 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. en-us Fri, 08 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331363 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331363