https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261496 Cenvat credit was treated as inadmissible where corroborative evidence showed that the invoiced ship-breaking scrap did not actually move from the dealer and the buyer received goods different from those described in the invoices. The note states that the burden lies on the person claiming credit to prove receipt of duty-paid inputs and to exercise due diligence, and that this burden was not discharged on the proved facts. It further explains that bogus or mismatched invoices supported invocation of the extended limitation period and the related demand, while penalties were justified for participation in the wrongful availment, subject to reduction of the senior officer's penalty amount. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261496 Cenvat credit was treated as inadmissible where corroborative evidence showed that the invoiced ship-breaking scrap did not actually move from the dealer and the buyer received goods different from those described in the invoices. The note states that the burden lies on the person claiming credit to prove receipt of duty-paid inputs and to exercise due diligence, and that this burden was not discharged on the proved facts. It further explains that bogus or mismatched invoices supported invocation of the extended limitation period and the related demand, while penalties were justified for participation in the wrongful availment, subject to reduction of the senior officer's penalty amount. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261496