https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347100 Cenvat credit was treated as admissible on supplementary invoices issued between two units of the same company, because the clearances were an intra-company transfer rather than a sale to an outside buyer. The bar in Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 was held not to apply in that setting, even though the differential duty arose from suppression allegations and was later settled before the Settlement Commission. The operative effect is that credit on such supplementary invoices was sustained, with the Revenue challenge rejected, consistent with prior High Court decisions on similar facts. en-us Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:08:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347100 Cenvat credit was treated as admissible on supplementary invoices issued between two units of the same company, because the clearances were an intra-company transfer rather than a sale to an outside buyer. The bar in Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 was held not to apply in that setting, even though the differential duty arose from suppression allegations and was later settled before the Settlement Commission. The operative effect is that credit on such supplementary invoices was sustained, with the Revenue challenge rejected, consistent with prior High Court decisions on similar facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347100