https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405961 A fraud finding affecting tax rights cannot stand without a specific allegation, prior notice, opportunity of hearing, and proof of intent to deceive based on proper enquiry. Here, the dispute had already been settled under an amnesty scheme, and the Tribunal's focus was limited to whether its fraud conclusion was justified. The original excise proceedings and appellate order addressed CENVAT credit on merits, not fabricated or tampered invoices. The High Court held that a hurried comparison of sample invoices and handwriting, without proper evidence of deceptive intent, could not support a fraud finding. The rejection of the rectification application with costs was therefore set aside. en-us Thu, 25 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405961 A fraud finding affecting tax rights cannot stand without a specific allegation, prior notice, opportunity of hearing, and proof of intent to deceive based on proper enquiry. Here, the dispute had already been settled under an amnesty scheme, and the Tribunal's focus was limited to whether its fraud conclusion was justified. The original excise proceedings and appellate order addressed CENVAT credit on merits, not fabricated or tampered invoices. The High Court held that a hurried comparison of sample invoices and handwriting, without proper evidence of deceptive intent, could not support a fraud finding. The rejection of the rectification application with costs was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405961