https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236946 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the payment was made through a deposit under section 35F and reflected in a supplementary invoice, where there was no finding of misdeclaration, fraud or suppression. The text distinguishes refund cases involving section 35F deposits from the present credit issue and treats the deposit, on these facts, as linked to the underlying duty liability rather than a mere refundable pre-deposit. On that basis, the credit was allowable and the related demand and penalty were not sustainable. en-us Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236946 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the payment was made through a deposit under section 35F and reflected in a supplementary invoice, where there was no finding of misdeclaration, fraud or suppression. The text distinguishes refund cases involving section 35F deposits from the present credit issue and treats the deposit, on these facts, as linked to the underlying duty liability rather than a mere refundable pre-deposit. On that basis, the credit was allowable and the related demand and penalty were not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236946