https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249278 CENVAT credit was treated as admissible where inputs were received, accounted for and used in manufacture, and the invoice name alteration after amalgamation was regarded as a clerical correction rather than an attempt to take inadmissible credit. On that basis, the demand for reversal of credit failed. Interest was also held unsustainable because it depended on the premise of wrongful availment, which was not established. Penalty under the extended recovery and penal provisions likewise could not survive in the absence of fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade duty, though the separate unchallenged penalty under the Central Excise Rules remained intact. en-us Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249278 CENVAT credit was treated as admissible where inputs were received, accounted for and used in manufacture, and the invoice name alteration after amalgamation was regarded as a clerical correction rather than an attempt to take inadmissible credit. On that basis, the demand for reversal of credit failed. Interest was also held unsustainable because it depended on the premise of wrongful availment, which was not established. Penalty under the extended recovery and penal provisions likewise could not survive in the absence of fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade duty, though the separate unchallenged penalty under the Central Excise Rules remained intact. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249278