https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381485 CENVAT credit was held admissible where invoices carried the address of a closed unit, because the services were in fact relatable to the operating unit and the records, including RG-1 and returns, supported availment at that location. The wrong address on some invoices was treated as a procedural lapse that did not defeat substantive credit. On limitation, regular return filing and disclosure of the credit negatived suppression or intent to evade tax, so the extended period could not be invoked. The demand was therefore time-barred and the assessee succeeded. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jun 2019 06:40:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381485 CENVAT credit was held admissible where invoices carried the address of a closed unit, because the services were in fact relatable to the operating unit and the records, including RG-1 and returns, supported availment at that location. The wrong address on some invoices was treated as a procedural lapse that did not defeat substantive credit. On limitation, regular return filing and disclosure of the credit negatived suppression or intent to evade tax, so the extended period could not be invoked. The demand was therefore time-barred and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381485