https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336741 Cenvat credit taken on fake invoices was held inadmissible because the assessee was obliged to verify the genuineness of supporting documents before availing credit. The use of fraudulent invoices justified invocation of the extended limitation period for recovery under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the benefit of section 11A(2B) was denied because the duty was paid under protest. The penalty imposed on the Director was also sustained under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The demand, interest, and penalties were upheld. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336741 Cenvat credit taken on fake invoices was held inadmissible because the assessee was obliged to verify the genuineness of supporting documents before availing credit. The use of fraudulent invoices justified invocation of the extended limitation period for recovery under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the benefit of section 11A(2B) was denied because the duty was paid under protest. The penalty imposed on the Director was also sustained under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The demand, interest, and penalties were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336741