https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352551 CENVAT credit could not be denied where inputs had already suffered AED (GSI) and the duty element was included in the original dealer invoice, even though a supplementary invoice later separately reflected that amount. The objection based on Rule 7(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 failed because the supplementary invoice merely clarified and cross-referenced an existing transaction; the underlying duty incidence was not in dispute. In light of the retrospective credit available for AED (GSI) under Notification No. 7/2003-CE, the denial of credit was unsustainable. The appeal therefore succeeded and the credit claim was upheld. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:24:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352551 CENVAT credit could not be denied where inputs had already suffered AED (GSI) and the duty element was included in the original dealer invoice, even though a supplementary invoice later separately reflected that amount. The objection based on Rule 7(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 failed because the supplementary invoice merely clarified and cross-referenced an existing transaction; the underlying duty incidence was not in dispute. In light of the retrospective credit available for AED (GSI) under Notification No. 7/2003-CE, the denial of credit was unsustainable. The appeal therefore succeeded and the credit claim was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352551