https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350133 Cenvat credit could not be denied where imported inputs had suffered countervailing duty, were received and used in manufacture before the credit transfer, and the transfer invoice was otherwise authentic. The absence of production in the June return did not defeat the credit, because documentary evidence supported the explanation that the raw materials were consumed in May and the later invoicing reflected only a procedural delay. Payment of interest for delayed issuance further indicated that the lapse was procedural rather than substantive. The credit was therefore not liable to reversal on the basis of the June ER-6 position or the timing of the invoice. en-us Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Nov 2017 11:07:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350133 Cenvat credit could not be denied where imported inputs had suffered countervailing duty, were received and used in manufacture before the credit transfer, and the transfer invoice was otherwise authentic. The absence of production in the June return did not defeat the credit, because documentary evidence supported the explanation that the raw materials were consumed in May and the later invoicing reflected only a procedural delay. Payment of interest for delayed issuance further indicated that the lapse was procedural rather than substantive. The credit was therefore not liable to reversal on the basis of the June ER-6 position or the timing of the invoice. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350133