9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Bhat, Advocate For the respondent ORDER The appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.305/2003 dated 17.9.2003. The respondent is a manufacturer of tyres, tubes and flaps falling under Chapter Heading 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the credit of Additional Excise Duty (AED) paid in respect of nylon tyre cord fabrics used in the manufacture of final pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch AED. When the issue was challenged before Commissioner (A), he set aside all such demands. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue is in appeal. 2. With the above background, we have heard Shri Mod. Yousaf, AR for Revenue and Shri Dattatray D. Bhat, advocate for the respondent. 3. After permitting utilization of AED (GSI credit) for payment of CENVAT duty w.e.f 1.3.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for the appellant during the course of argument submitted that the issue has been settled at rest by inserting the Explanation in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 4. The dispute in the present case is with reference to the credit of AED (GSI) availed by the respondent during the period July 1999 to January 2000 and February 2000 to September 2000 and also February 2001 to May 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
