https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30477 Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because export documents and bond records initially reflected 4% duty instead of 16% under Notification No. 3/2001, where export of goods and substantive eligibility to credit on inputs or capital goods were otherwise undisputed. The procedural lapse in following the export bond procedure did not defeat the underlying entitlement to credit. Once the credit itself was admissible on merits, the associated penalty and interest could not survive independently. The denial of Cenvat credit was therefore not sustainable, and the assessee succeeded on the substantive credit issue. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30477 Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because export documents and bond records initially reflected 4% duty instead of 16% under Notification No. 3/2001, where export of goods and substantive eligibility to credit on inputs or capital goods were otherwise undisputed. The procedural lapse in following the export bond procedure did not defeat the underlying entitlement to credit. Once the credit itself was admissible on merits, the associated penalty and interest could not survive independently. The denial of Cenvat credit was therefore not sustainable, and the assessee succeeded on the substantive credit issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30477