https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357047 Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices was stated to be admissible where the supplier later paid differential duty after a short payment caused by an incorrect costing method. The text notes that the short payment was not due to clandestine removal, and that the common ownership of supplier and recipient made the duty payment revenue neutral because the same duty would have been available as credit. It also states that suppression of facts or intent to evade duty was not established, as no explicit finding of suppression had been recorded and a token penalty in the supplier's settlement did not prove evasion. On these facts, denial of credit was said to be unjustified. en-us Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:00:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357047 Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices was stated to be admissible where the supplier later paid differential duty after a short payment caused by an incorrect costing method. The text notes that the short payment was not due to clandestine removal, and that the common ownership of supplier and recipient made the duty payment revenue neutral because the same duty would have been available as credit. It also states that suppression of facts or intent to evade duty was not established, as no explicit finding of suppression had been recorded and a token penalty in the supplier's settlement did not prove evasion. On these facts, denial of credit was said to be unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357047