https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113200 Modvat credit and related penalty could not be denied by invoking the extended period of limitation merely because the assessee allegedly failed to take further steps beyond verifying the dealers' identity and address. The Tribunal noted that the department did not show the dealers were fictitious or unavailable at the stated addresses, and the invoices contained the relevant particulars. Since the notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period, the extended period required proof that the assessee knew, or had reason to know, that the goods were not duty paid, or had suppressed material facts. In the absence of such material, the extended period was not invocable and the denial of credit and penalty failed. en-us Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2012 13:00:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113200 Modvat credit and related penalty could not be denied by invoking the extended period of limitation merely because the assessee allegedly failed to take further steps beyond verifying the dealers' identity and address. The Tribunal noted that the department did not show the dealers were fictitious or unavailable at the stated addresses, and the invoices contained the relevant particulars. Since the notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period, the extended period required proof that the assessee knew, or had reason to know, that the goods were not duty paid, or had suppressed material facts. In the absence of such material, the extended period was not invocable and the denial of credit and penalty failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113200