https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245640 The Tribunal ruled against the appellant in a case concerning the denial of CENVAT credit due to invoices issued to a job worker instead of the appellant. The appellant's claim for credit based on endorsed invoices from the job worker was rejected as endorsed invoices were not recognized under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The appellant's arguments regarding Rule 3(1) and Rule 9 interpretations were considered but deemed insufficient to justify the credit claim. Additionally, the appellant's defense of the demand being time-barred was rejected for failing to provide the necessary intimation of material facts. Despite not pleading financial hardships, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit the credit amount within six weeks, with the possibility of waiver and stay of penalties upon compliance. en-us Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245640 The Tribunal ruled against the appellant in a case concerning the denial of CENVAT credit due to invoices issued to a job worker instead of the appellant. The appellant's claim for credit based on endorsed invoices from the job worker was rejected as endorsed invoices were not recognized under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The appellant's arguments regarding Rule 3(1) and Rule 9 interpretations were considered but deemed insufficient to justify the credit claim. Additionally, the appellant's defense of the demand being time-barred was rejected for failing to provide the necessary intimation of material facts. Despite not pleading financial hardships, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit the credit amount within six weeks, with the possibility of waiver and stay of penalties upon compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245640