https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356476 Cenvat credit was denied where the Revenue alleged that invoices describing sheets, coils and similar inputs masked receipt of scrap, but the Tribunal found the documentary record, laboratory material and commercial evidence insufficient to prove a paper transaction or receipt of entirely different goods. Dealer statements were weakened by retractions in cross-examination, and an earlier tribunal view on similar facts supported the assessees. The demand on merits therefore failed. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because wilful suppression or intent to evade duty was not established under the proviso to Section 11A(1), so the proceedings were barred for the predominant period covered by the notices. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Mar 2018 08:01:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356476 Cenvat credit was denied where the Revenue alleged that invoices describing sheets, coils and similar inputs masked receipt of scrap, but the Tribunal found the documentary record, laboratory material and commercial evidence insufficient to prove a paper transaction or receipt of entirely different goods. Dealer statements were weakened by retractions in cross-examination, and an earlier tribunal view on similar facts supported the assessees. The demand on merits therefore failed. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because wilful suppression or intent to evade duty was not established under the proviso to Section 11A(1), so the proceedings were barred for the predominant period covered by the notices. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356476