https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245692 Supplementary invoices issued after later payment of duty remained valid documents for availing Cenvat credit on capital goods under Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, because the duty differential did not arise from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or similar contravention. The credit was therefore admissible on the invoices. The objection that the assessee was not the owner of the capital goods also failed, because ownership is not the governing test for such credit. The appeal was dismissed and the order allowing Cenvat credit was sustained. en-us Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:32:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245692 Supplementary invoices issued after later payment of duty remained valid documents for availing Cenvat credit on capital goods under Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, because the duty differential did not arise from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or similar contravention. The credit was therefore admissible on the invoices. The objection that the assessee was not the owner of the capital goods also failed, because ownership is not the governing test for such credit. The appeal was dismissed and the order allowing Cenvat credit was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245692