9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant M/s PRS Permacel Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. US/171/M-II/2013 dated 27.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II, whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed for non-compliance of order of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the relevant facts being previously disclosed to the Revenue. Vide Order-in-Original dated 11.12.2012 the proposed demand was confirmed along with imposition of equal amount of penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and also interest was ordered to be recovered. 3. Being aggrieved by rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant preferred the appeal before this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he factory or warehouse or premises of the manufacture or provider of service, as the case may be, and the adjudicating authority is satisfied that the goods or the services covered by the said document have been received and accounted for in the Books of Account of the receiver, he may allow the CENVAT Credit. The appellant also relies on ruling of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the invoices are numbered by hand and not by franking machine. There is no other discrepancy pointed out. Thus, in view of the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also following the ruling in the case of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I hold that the CENVAT Credit is allowable to the appellant. Thus, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
