https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439578 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order against the Appellant, an integrated steel plant, accused of wrongfully availing Cenvat credit based on fake invoices. The Tribunal found that the burden of proof lay with the department, which failed to establish that the Appellant received goods from an alternate source. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the demand for duty was barred by limitation, citing a judgment that extended limitation cannot apply if credit was initially availed from a duly registered manufacturer. en-us Mon, 26 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jun 2023 15:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439578 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order against the Appellant, an integrated steel plant, accused of wrongfully availing Cenvat credit based on fake invoices. The Tribunal found that the burden of proof lay with the department, which failed to establish that the Appellant received goods from an alternate source. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the demand for duty was barred by limitation, citing a judgment that extended limitation cannot apply if credit was initially availed from a duly registered manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439578