https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286234 Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices was held admissible where differential duty arose from under-valuation but the goods were transferred between units by stock transfer, not sold. Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was applied as a limited bar confined to cases where additional duty becomes recoverable due to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or similar evasion-related defaults in a sale transaction. As the clearances were stock transfers, the restriction did not apply and the recipient unit was not denied credit merely because the supplier later paid differential duty. The demand for reversal was therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:28:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286234 Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices was held admissible where differential duty arose from under-valuation but the goods were transferred between units by stock transfer, not sold. Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was applied as a limited bar confined to cases where additional duty becomes recoverable due to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or similar evasion-related defaults in a sale transaction. As the clearances were stock transfers, the restriction did not apply and the recipient unit was not denied credit merely because the supplier later paid differential duty. The demand for reversal was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286234