https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448860 CENVAT credit was admissible where the endorsed Bill of Entry evidenced receipt of imported goods in the factory and their use in manufacture of dutiable final products; a procedural defect in the import document or in the FMC/DFCE notification process could not defeat credit when the substantive conditions were met. The extended limitation period was inapplicable because the record did not show suppression, fraud, collusion, misstatement, or intent to evade duty; the notices were therefore time-barred. Penalty under Rule 26 was also unsustainable once the demand failed, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448860 CENVAT credit was admissible where the endorsed Bill of Entry evidenced receipt of imported goods in the factory and their use in manufacture of dutiable final products; a procedural defect in the import document or in the FMC/DFCE notification process could not defeat credit when the substantive conditions were met. The extended limitation period was inapplicable because the record did not show suppression, fraud, collusion, misstatement, or intent to evade duty; the notices were therefore time-barred. Penalty under Rule 26 was also unsustainable once the demand failed, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448860