https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186285 Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices could not be denied to a purchaser merely because penalty was imposed on the supplier. The supplier's show cause notice and adjudication order did not record suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, contravention with intent to evade duty, or any other foundational finding required to trigger the credit restriction. Mere penalty under Rule 173Q, without those statutory ingredients, was insufficient to speculate against the purchaser. In the absence of the preconditions for applying Rule 7(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, denial of credit was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186285 Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices could not be denied to a purchaser merely because penalty was imposed on the supplier. The supplier's show cause notice and adjudication order did not record suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, contravention with intent to evade duty, or any other foundational finding required to trigger the credit restriction. Mere penalty under Rule 173Q, without those statutory ingredients, was insufficient to speculate against the purchaser. In the absence of the preconditions for applying Rule 7(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, denial of credit was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186285