https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2206 Credit under the CENVAT framework was upheld where objections were only procedural or rectifiable, because non-declaration, absence of Bill of Entry particulars, or later-produced supporting evidence did not by themselves justify denial when documentary support was otherwise available. Credit was, however, denied where the claim was made beyond six months or where invoice defects were left uncorrected, as delayed availment and unremedied material deficiencies could validly defeat the claim. Penalty was not sustained where denial was not wholly maintained and the remaining disputes did not support punitive consequences. en-us Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2206 Credit under the CENVAT framework was upheld where objections were only procedural or rectifiable, because non-declaration, absence of Bill of Entry particulars, or later-produced supporting evidence did not by themselves justify denial when documentary support was otherwise available. Credit was, however, denied where the claim was made beyond six months or where invoice defects were left uncorrected, as delayed availment and unremedied material deficiencies could validly defeat the claim. Penalty was not sustained where denial was not wholly maintained and the remaining disputes did not support punitive consequences. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2206