2017 (7) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee manufacturer of excisable goods had availed credit of Rs. 17,30,304/- during the period November 2008 to October 2009.Alleging that credit availed on invoices which are not in accordance with the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 accordingly, notice was issued for recovery of the credit with intrerest and penalty. On adjudication, ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand the with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty; he dropped the demand to the extent of Rs. 40,43,889/-. Aggrieved by the said confirmation of demand of 17,30,304/-, the assessee is in appeal whereas the Revenue challenged the order setting aside the demand of Rs. 14,20,800/-. 4. Ld. Advocate Shri Prasad Para....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....round on the basis of additional evidence is unsustainable in law. He further submits that the dealer's invoices was in accordance with Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and not mentioning the importer/manufacturer's particulars in the dealer's invoices, would not make them ineligible to credit. 5. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterating the findings of the ld. Commissioner with regard to denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 17,30,304/- submitted that attested copy of the bill of entry cannot be the basis and be considered as prescribed document for availing CENVAT credit. In support of the appeal of the Revenue, he has submitted that in the report of field information, after verification of invoice No.15 dated 28.4.2007, issue....