https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771417 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal and set aside the demand for Cenvat credit denial based on alleged fake invoices. The tribunal found that proceedings relied solely on uncorroborated third-party statements without independent evidence or investigation into invoice authenticity, bank transactions, or goods receipt. The appellant maintained proper records and filed regular returns with no suppression of facts. The demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of CEA, 1944, as extended period invocation was unjustified. Penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 was also set aside. en-us Thu, 22 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 May 2025 08:52:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771417 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal and set aside the demand for Cenvat credit denial based on alleged fake invoices. The tribunal found that proceedings relied solely on uncorroborated third-party statements without independent evidence or investigation into invoice authenticity, bank transactions, or goods receipt. The appellant maintained proper records and filed regular returns with no suppression of facts. The demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of CEA, 1944, as extended period invocation was unjustified. Penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 was also set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771417