https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243405 The judgment ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the denial of Cenvat credit based on the revoked registration of the supplier was unjustified as the appellants had received and utilized the inputs, paid central excise duty, and maintained proper records. The appellants were found to have fulfilled their obligations regarding receipt of inputs, compliance with Cenvat credit Rules, burden of proof on record-keeping, and validity of invoices from a registered dealer. The judgment highlighted the buyer's responsibility for supplier misconduct, stating that as long as the buyer took reasonable steps and relied on valid documents, Cenvat credit could not be denied. en-us Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243405 The judgment ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the denial of Cenvat credit based on the revoked registration of the supplier was unjustified as the appellants had received and utilized the inputs, paid central excise duty, and maintained proper records. The appellants were found to have fulfilled their obligations regarding receipt of inputs, compliance with Cenvat credit Rules, burden of proof on record-keeping, and validity of invoices from a registered dealer. The judgment highlighted the buyer's responsibility for supplier misconduct, stating that as long as the buyer took reasonable steps and relied on valid documents, Cenvat credit could not be denied. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243405