https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331724 CESTAT Mumbai held that Cenvat credit cannot be denied to a bona fide recipient merely because the supplier fraudulently availed excess credit, where receipt and use of the goods were undisputed and there was no evidence of the recipient's knowledge, collusion, or other infirmity affecting admissibility. Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 may place a burden on admissibility, but denial depends on the surrounding facts and the buyer's complicity. Authorities relied on by the Revenue were distinguished because they involved patent invoice defects, fictitious firms, or an interim remand order. The appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331724 CESTAT Mumbai held that Cenvat credit cannot be denied to a bona fide recipient merely because the supplier fraudulently availed excess credit, where receipt and use of the goods were undisputed and there was no evidence of the recipient's knowledge, collusion, or other infirmity affecting admissibility. Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 may place a burden on admissibility, but denial depends on the surrounding facts and the buyer's complicity. Authorities relied on by the Revenue were distinguished because they involved patent invoice defects, fictitious firms, or an interim remand order. The appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331724