https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399844 CENVAT credit on supplementary invoices issued by a job worker was held admissible because the differential duty arose from an interpretational valuation dispute, the transaction was duly recorded, and no independent material showed fraud, collusion, suppression or intent to evade duty under Rule 9(1)(b). The dispute was treated as revenue neutral, since duty paid by the job worker was available as credit to the recipient, and the recipient had no disqualifying mens rea. Settlement proceedings against the job worker could not, by themselves, establish mens rea against the recipient. On that basis, the extended period of limitation, demand and penalty were held unsustainable. en-us Thu, 15 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 May 2021 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399844 CENVAT credit on supplementary invoices issued by a job worker was held admissible because the differential duty arose from an interpretational valuation dispute, the transaction was duly recorded, and no independent material showed fraud, collusion, suppression or intent to evade duty under Rule 9(1)(b). The dispute was treated as revenue neutral, since duty paid by the job worker was available as credit to the recipient, and the recipient had no disqualifying mens rea. Settlement proceedings against the job worker could not, by themselves, establish mens rea against the recipient. On that basis, the extended period of limitation, demand and penalty were held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399844