9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the Order-in-Appeal No. 278/2003 (M I), dated 4-7-2003. To avoid repetition of facts and findings, it is appropriate to extract the order, which is reproduced herein below :- Vide the impugned Order, the Lower Authority had held as follows :- I observe from the records and from the admission of the assessees that the duty of Rs. 1,06,014/- was paid on 19-7-1999 and Rs. 13,093/- was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty certified under Rule 57-E was to have been taken within 6 months from the date of issue of 57-E certificate in line with Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the instant case, the 57-E certificate was not issue at all and, therefore, the question of taking the credit within 6 months did not arise. Accordingly, he has ordered recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,19,097/- (Rupees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 30-8-2002, the findings rendered in the impugned Order-in-Original No. 3/2002, dated 7-1-2002 becomes infructuous. Hence, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal . The Revenue contend that the supplementary invoices were re-issued under Rule 57AE of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the duty payment made in the past. The issue of certificate was rejected as the additional payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Board s Circular F. No. 345/2/2000-TRU, dated 29-8-2000, the supplementary invoices is required to be accepted, which has been done by the Commissioner and there is no merits in the Revenue appeal. 4. On a careful consideration, I notice from the impugned order which is already extracted, the Commissioner has noted about the parallel proceedings initiated against the sister concern, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
