https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151910 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the supplier paid duty only after detection by excise authorities. The settlement authority had granted immunity from penalty after considering the facts, including the unsettled brand-name issue, which supported the absence of intent to evade duty. On that basis, the supplier was not treated as guilty of suppression, and credit taken on the strength of the supplier's invoices remained valid. The disallowance of credit and the related penalty were therefore set aside. en-us Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:46:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151910 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the supplier paid duty only after detection by excise authorities. The settlement authority had granted immunity from penalty after considering the facts, including the unsettled brand-name issue, which supported the absence of intent to evade duty. On that basis, the supplier was not treated as guilty of suppression, and credit taken on the strength of the supplier's invoices remained valid. The disallowance of credit and the related penalty were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151910