https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123751 CENVAT credit on supplementary invoices issued after the supplier later discharged short-paid duty was treated as admissible because the record did not show any show cause notice to the supplier invoking the first proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. In the absence of evidence that the supplier had been proceeded against on those statutory grounds, the department could not deny credit on that basis. The related demand of interest under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 also failed on the same footing, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:03:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123751 CENVAT credit on supplementary invoices issued after the supplier later discharged short-paid duty was treated as admissible because the record did not show any show cause notice to the supplier invoking the first proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. In the absence of evidence that the supplier had been proceeded against on those statutory grounds, the department could not deny credit on that basis. The related demand of interest under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 also failed on the same footing, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123751