https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325813 CENVAT credit could not be denied where the invoices contained required particulars, receipt of goods was supported by transport records and excise verification, and the department failed to prove the invoices were fake. The assessee was also denied cross-examination of a witness on whose statement the case rested, weakening the department's evidence. Because the credit had been disclosed in ER-1 returns, there was no basis to invoke suppression or the extended limitation period; the resulting demand was time-barred and the penalty could not survive. The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2016 12:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325813 CENVAT credit could not be denied where the invoices contained required particulars, receipt of goods was supported by transport records and excise verification, and the department failed to prove the invoices were fake. The assessee was also denied cross-examination of a witness on whose statement the case rested, weakening the department's evidence. Because the credit had been disclosed in ER-1 returns, there was no basis to invoke suppression or the extended limitation period; the resulting demand was time-barred and the penalty could not survive. The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325813