https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271654 Endorsed bills of entry remained valid credit documents, and Cenvat credit was admissible where the inputs were duty paid, received in the factory and used in manufacture; a mere procedural defect could not defeat substantive entitlement. The extended period of limitation and penalties were not invocable because the record did not establish intent to evade duty, particularly where the documents were submitted for defacement and the credits were reflected in statutory returns. The matter was remanded for limited factual verification on receipt and utilisation of the consignments. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Feb 2016 10:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271654 Endorsed bills of entry remained valid credit documents, and Cenvat credit was admissible where the inputs were duty paid, received in the factory and used in manufacture; a mere procedural defect could not defeat substantive entitlement. The extended period of limitation and penalties were not invocable because the record did not establish intent to evade duty, particularly where the documents were submitted for defacement and the credits were reflected in statutory returns. The matter was remanded for limited factual verification on receipt and utilisation of the consignments. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271654