https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267564 Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where the assessee failed to prove actual receipt of duty-paid HR trimmings, with the invoices, banking trail, and co-noticee material indicating a diversion scheme rather than genuine procurement. Denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the demand because independent documentary evidence already established non-receipt and no prejudice was shown. The limitation objection was rejected since availing credit without receipt of goods was treated as fraud and suppression inherent in the transaction. Penalties on the director, brokers, and transporter were upheld for their role in supervising, facilitating, and routing the fictitious movement and documents; the demand, interest, and penalties were sustained in full. en-us Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267564 Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where the assessee failed to prove actual receipt of duty-paid HR trimmings, with the invoices, banking trail, and co-noticee material indicating a diversion scheme rather than genuine procurement. Denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the demand because independent documentary evidence already established non-receipt and no prejudice was shown. The limitation objection was rejected since availing credit without receipt of goods was treated as fraud and suppression inherent in the transaction. Penalties on the director, brokers, and transporter were upheld for their role in supervising, facilitating, and routing the fictitious movement and documents; the demand, interest, and penalties were sustained in full. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267564