https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264056 Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where the invoices were issued to a different consignee and were neither in the assessee's name nor endorsed to it, because the prescribed documentary conditions under the Cenvat Credit Rules were not satisfied and no reliable proof showed receipt and use of the goods in the factory. The extended limitation period was also upheld because the record did not establish disclosure of the credit availment to the Department, and the concurrent finding of suppression was not displaced. As a result, the demand, interest and penalties sustained on wrongful availment of credit were affirmed. en-us Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2016 17:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264056 Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where the invoices were issued to a different consignee and were neither in the assessee's name nor endorsed to it, because the prescribed documentary conditions under the Cenvat Credit Rules were not satisfied and no reliable proof showed receipt and use of the goods in the factory. The extended limitation period was also upheld because the record did not establish disclosure of the credit availment to the Department, and the concurrent finding of suppression was not displaced. As a result, the demand, interest and penalties sustained on wrongful availment of credit were affirmed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264056