https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94281 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the ISD's distribution of CENVAT/ITC to the recipient unit was lawful; mere technical defects in supplier invoices (addressed to another unit or absence of non-essential particulars) and reliance on internal CWIP ledgers do not suffice to disallow credit where genuineness is not disproved and corroborative evidence (payments, vouchers, performance proof) exists. The Tribunal found no findings of fabricated invoices, shell suppliers or circular payments and concluded the Department failed to establish the two statutory conditions under Rule 7/ISD provisions. Further, invocation of the extended limitation period was not established, rendering the demand time-barred. Consequently the demand, interest and penalties were vacated. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:42 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94281 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the ISD's distribution of CENVAT/ITC to the recipient unit was lawful; mere technical defects in supplier invoices (addressed to another unit or absence of non-essential particulars) and reliance on internal CWIP ledgers do not suffice to disallow credit where genuineness is not disproved and corroborative evidence (payments, vouchers, performance proof) exists. The Tribunal found no findings of fabricated invoices, shell suppliers or circular payments and concluded the Department failed to establish the two statutory conditions under Rule 7/ISD provisions. Further, invocation of the extended limitation period was not established, rendering the demand time-barred. Consequently the demand, interest and penalties were vacated. Highlights Central Excise Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:42 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94281