https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363746 Debit notes were accepted as valid documents where they identified the original invoices and the goods covered, so Cenvat credit was admissible on that basis. Common input service credit attributable to trading activity had to be reversed because trading was treated as an exempted service for the relevant period, making full retention of shared credit impermissible. Credit on goods returned from an EOU under Rule 16 was allowable because duty had been charged at the return stage and later retention or re-clearance did not justify denial at the recipient end. The extended limitation period was also upheld because non-disclosure of trading activity and the credit pattern supported suppression. en-us Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jul 2018 06:12:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363746 Debit notes were accepted as valid documents where they identified the original invoices and the goods covered, so Cenvat credit was admissible on that basis. Common input service credit attributable to trading activity had to be reversed because trading was treated as an exempted service for the relevant period, making full retention of shared credit impermissible. Credit on goods returned from an EOU under Rule 16 was allowable because duty had been charged at the return stage and later retention or re-clearance did not justify denial at the recipient end. The extended limitation period was also upheld because non-disclosure of trading activity and the credit pattern supported suppression. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363746