TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944 as pre-deposit cannot be considered as payment of duty. He held that since the pre-deposit is not a duty question of taking of Cenvat credit of the pre-deposit does not arise. We find that in the assessee’s own case [2013 (9) TMI 378 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], this Tribunal has already taken a view that the Cenvat credit of pre-deposit of duty paid under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month of January 2004, it was found that they had wrongly taken Cenvat credit of Rs. 25,93,988/- vide inputs Cenvat credit entry No. 9201001833 against supplementary Invoice No. 8141 dated 31st December 2003 and credit of Rs. 16,95,232/- vide their Cenvat credit entry No. 9201001834 against the supplementary Invoice No. 2281 dated 13th December 2003 in contravention of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-original No. 11/CE/JP-II/2005, dated 28th March 2005 confirming the duty and imposing the equivalent amount of penalty along with interest against the assessee. Assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), who vide the impugned order upheld the confirmation of demand and set aside the imposition of penalty. The assessee has filed this appeal No. E/1144 of 2006 aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. He, therefore, stated since the issue already stands covered by the CESTAT order appeal filed by them needs to be allowed and the appeal of the Revenue needs to be dismissed. 4. The learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the finding of the lower authorities. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in this ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
