https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335624 The Tribunal held in favor of the appellants, ruling that the supplementary invoices issued by HPCL Terminal could be used to claim CENVAT credit. HPCL Terminal was classified as a depot, not a 'First Stage Dealer', and procedural lapses did not justify denying substantive rights. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was deemed unsustainable as there was no evidence of fraud, and the penalty imposed was unjustified due to the absence of fraudulent intent. The appellants succeeded on both merits and limitation grounds, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential reliefs. en-us Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Dec 2016 13:29:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335624 The Tribunal held in favor of the appellants, ruling that the supplementary invoices issued by HPCL Terminal could be used to claim CENVAT credit. HPCL Terminal was classified as a depot, not a 'First Stage Dealer', and procedural lapses did not justify denying substantive rights. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was deemed unsustainable as there was no evidence of fraud, and the penalty imposed was unjustified due to the absence of fraudulent intent. The appellants succeeded on both merits and limitation grounds, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential reliefs. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335624