Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit on the disputed service-tax paid inputs and whether the supporting documents produced to substantiate the claim could be relied upon.
Analysis: The disputed bills showed different handwriting and inserted descriptions suggesting that the documents had been altered to present machinery-shifting charges as labour charges. The purchase orders relied upon did not establish actual transmission to vendors and appeared to be test prints rather than original commercial documents. The evidence therefore did not inspire confidence, and the claim for credit was found to rest on material created to support inadmissible credit. Reliance was placed on the principle that a party approaching an adjudicatory forum must do so with clean hands and that fraud vitiates the proceedings.
Conclusion: The claim for cenvat credit was rejected, and the order denying the credit was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits because the supporting documents were disbelieved as fraudulent and the denial of cenvat credit was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Relief founded on altered or unreliable documents can be refused where the material shows fraud or suppression, since fraud vitiates the entitlement claimed and a litigant must approach the forum with clean hands.