9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd credit of Rs. 25,766/- and credit of Rs. 5,328/- was denied to the appellant and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. 3.The contention of the appellant is that Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,01,305/- was denied on the ground that this credit is in respect of Additional Excise duty which can be utilized for the payment of AED(GSI). During the period in dispute, i.e. 1st April 2001 to Sep. 2001, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,766/-, the contention of the appellant is that the credit was denied on the ground that they had opted for availing Cenvat Scheme with effect from 1-4-2001 and there is no evidence on record to show that the inputs regarding credit was availed prior to 1-4-2000 were used in the manufacture of goods cleared after that date. The contention is that the credit was availed on the strength of invoice i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which serial number had hand written. The contention is that the Tribunal in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 715 held that credit is not admissible when serial number on invoice is written in hand. In this case, the credit of Rs. 2,01,305/- was denied on the ground that this credit is in respect of AED(GSI) and the same can be utilized against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envat Scheme, are utilized in the manufacture of goods cleared after 1-4-2001, therefore, this credit was rightly denied. 8.In respect of the credit of Rs. 5,328/- as the serial number of the invoice was hand written that, therefore, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of U.P. Sugar State (supra), the appellants are not entitled for this credit. Therefore, the impugned order in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
