https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370010 Extended limitation could not be invoked against a job worker who received goods through endorsed invoices from principal manufacturers, where the notice contained no specific allegation or evidence of suppression, misdeclaration, fraud, or collusion by the recipient. The Cenvat credit demand therefore failed on limitation and was set aside. Penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC also could not be sustained in rebate-related proceedings because the allegation of bogus or fake suppliers was unsupported by evidence and no culpable conduct by the assessee was established. The penalty was likewise set aside. en-us Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Nov 2018 10:55:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370010 Extended limitation could not be invoked against a job worker who received goods through endorsed invoices from principal manufacturers, where the notice contained no specific allegation or evidence of suppression, misdeclaration, fraud, or collusion by the recipient. The Cenvat credit demand therefore failed on limitation and was set aside. Penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC also could not be sustained in rebate-related proceedings because the allegation of bogus or fake suppliers was unsupported by evidence and no culpable conduct by the assessee was established. The penalty was likewise set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370010