Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices cannot be denied absent proof of suppression or wilful undervaluation.

Cenvat credit could not be denied on supplementary invoices where the alleged disqualification under Rule 7(1)(b) / Rule 9(1)(b) depended on suppression or wilful undervaluation. The Pune unit's supplementary invoices were based on inclusion of amortised capital goods cost, but that item was already held not required in the assessable value, so the documents were not invalid for credit purposes. For the Jalgaon unit, duty and interest were accepted in settlement, yet no suppression finding or penalty was recorded, indicating no basis to treat the invoices as barred. The conditions for disallowance were therefore not established.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on supplementary invoices issued by the appellant's units on the ground of suppression or undervaluation so as to attract Rule 7(1)(b) / Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004.

Analysis: The credit dispute turned on whether the duty paid on stock transfers and the supplementary invoices issued by the Jalgaon and Pune units were tainted by suppression of facts or wilful undervaluation. The findings relied upon showed that, in respect of the Pune unit, the Tribunal had already held that amortized cost of capital goods was not required to be added to the assessable value, and therefore the supplementary invoices issued on that basis could not be treated as disqualifying documents. In respect of the Jalgaon unit, the Settlement Commission accepted duty and interest but recorded no finding of suppression and imposed no penalty, from which the absence of suppression was inferred.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit could not be denied, as the conditions for disallowance under Rule 7(1)(b) / Rule 9(1)(b) were not established.

---