https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125327 A demand for Cenvat credit reversal on short-received or rejected inputs failed because the record did not establish that the assessee had actually availed credit on such inputs; mere reliance on rejection reports and an alleged admission was insufficient without independent proof of wrongful availment. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the same transactions had already been the subject of earlier proceedings and there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. As the demand was unsustainable and the show-cause notices did not properly sustain Section 11AC penalty, the penalty could not be restored. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:18:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125327 A demand for Cenvat credit reversal on short-received or rejected inputs failed because the record did not establish that the assessee had actually availed credit on such inputs; mere reliance on rejection reports and an alleged admission was insufficient without independent proof of wrongful availment. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the same transactions had already been the subject of earlier proceedings and there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. As the demand was unsustainable and the show-cause notices did not properly sustain Section 11AC penalty, the penalty could not be restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125327