2009 (6) TMI 765

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... R.K. Verma, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aerated Water and Beverage Syrup classifiable under Sub-Headings Nos. 2202.20 and 2108.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed Cenvat Credit on Basic Excise Duty on the basis of the invoices issued by the Reg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00 to 9-10-2000. The Original Authority disallowed the credit and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order. 2. Ld. Representative of the appellant submits that the appellant availed the credit on Basic Excise Duty during the period 1-4-2000 to 9-10-2000 on the goods accompanied....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew of the amendment of the Rules. The main contention of the ld. DR is that the appellant failed to produce any evidence in support of their credit in RG-23A Part-II Register. He also submits that the dealer also did not mention in their invoices the AED (GSI). He also submits that in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is liable to take the credit on the basis of the docum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellants failed to produce proper duty paying documents in respect of payment of AED (GSI). The Representative contended that the dealer's invoices indicated the value of the goods higher than that in the primary invoices of the manufacturer. It is his contention that the manufacturer's invoices could establish the payment of AED (GSI). I am unable to accept the contention of the ld. Representati....