https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262105 Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where invoices were not backed by actual movement or receipt of duty-paid goods, as shown by record mismatches, lack of transport evidence, adverse verification reports, and statements that the alleged suppliers had not made the stated clearances. On those facts, the Tribunal upheld the duty and interest demand and sustained invocation of the extended period of limitation. It further held that a separate equal penalty under Rule 13(1) was not warranted once penalty under Section 11AC had already been imposed on the same fraudulent availment. The company's director's penalty was maintained because his involvement in the credit scheme was inferred from the transaction chain. en-us Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262105 Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where invoices were not backed by actual movement or receipt of duty-paid goods, as shown by record mismatches, lack of transport evidence, adverse verification reports, and statements that the alleged suppliers had not made the stated clearances. On those facts, the Tribunal upheld the duty and interest demand and sustained invocation of the extended period of limitation. It further held that a separate equal penalty under Rule 13(1) was not warranted once penalty under Section 11AC had already been imposed on the same fraudulent availment. The company's director's penalty was maintained because his involvement in the credit scheme was inferred from the transaction chain. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262105