https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770129 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal of a company that availed CENVAT credit on inputs purchased from a registered dealer. Revenue alleged paper transactions without actual receipt of inputs and imposed penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The tribunal held that the company could not be expected to verify beyond covering documents when all particulars were mentioned in invoices from the registered dealer. Vehicle owner statements recorded 3-4 years later were insufficient to deny entire credit. Revenue failed to prove how finished goods were manufactured without inputs, which were properly accounted in company records. Extended limitation period was not applicable absent specific findings of fraud or suppression. Penalties were set aside as credit availment was regularized. en-us Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 May 2025 09:18:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770129 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal of a company that availed CENVAT credit on inputs purchased from a registered dealer. Revenue alleged paper transactions without actual receipt of inputs and imposed penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The tribunal held that the company could not be expected to verify beyond covering documents when all particulars were mentioned in invoices from the registered dealer. Vehicle owner statements recorded 3-4 years later were insufficient to deny entire credit. Revenue failed to prove how finished goods were manufactured without inputs, which were properly accounted in company records. Extended limitation period was not applicable absent specific findings of fraud or suppression. Penalties were set aside as credit availment was regularized. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770129