Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices cannot be denied absent fraud, suppression, or intent to evade duty.

Credit of duty taken on supplementary invoices was not barred under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 merely because the duty demand against the job worker had been raised for the extended period. The bar applies only where duty becomes payable because of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Here, the decisive finding was that the job worker's non-payment arose from ignorance, and the authority had not recorded the culpable conduct required to invoke the exception. The recipient was therefore entitled to retain the Cenvat credit taken on the supplementary invoices.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit of duty paid by a job worker on the basis of supplementary invoices was barred under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when the duty demand against the job worker had been raised invoking the extended period.

Analysis: The bar under Rule 9(1)(b) applies only where the duty became payable because of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. The decisive finding recorded in the job worker's case was that the non-payment of duty was due to ignorance. The jurisdictional authority dealing with the supplying unit had not recorded the type of culpable conduct required to attract the statutory exception. The mere fact that duty was demanded by invoking the extended period did not, by itself, establish the conditions necessary to deny credit to the recipient.

Conclusion: Credit could not be denied under Rule 9(1)(b), and the assessee was entitled to retain the credit taken on the strength of supplementary invoices.

---