https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342299 Cenvat credit could not be denied on supplementary invoices where the alleged disqualification under Rule 7(1)(b) / Rule 9(1)(b) depended on suppression or wilful undervaluation. The Pune unit's supplementary invoices were based on inclusion of amortised capital goods cost, but that item was already held not required in the assessable value, so the documents were not invalid for credit purposes. For the Jalgaon unit, duty and interest were accepted in settlement, yet no suppression finding or penalty was recorded, indicating no basis to treat the invoices as barred. The conditions for disallowance were therefore not established. en-us Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Feb 2018 18:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342299 Cenvat credit could not be denied on supplementary invoices where the alleged disqualification under Rule 7(1)(b) / Rule 9(1)(b) depended on suppression or wilful undervaluation. The Pune unit's supplementary invoices were based on inclusion of amortised capital goods cost, but that item was already held not required in the assessable value, so the documents were not invalid for credit purposes. For the Jalgaon unit, duty and interest were accepted in settlement, yet no suppression finding or penalty was recorded, indicating no basis to treat the invoices as barred. The conditions for disallowance were therefore not established. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342299