https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781869 CESTAT Ahmedabad set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming demand of CENVAT credit and equal penalty on the assessee and its director. The Tribunal held that although the assessee failed to exercise due diligence under Rule 7 of the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/Rule 7(2) of the 2004 Rules, there was no evidence of its involvement in the fraud committed by non-existent suppliers. Applying the HC ruling in Prayagraj Dyeing & Printing Mills, it treated the assessee as a holder in due course for valuable consideration without notice and held that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not invocable. Appeals were allowed. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Nov 2025 07:36:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781869 CESTAT Ahmedabad set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming demand of CENVAT credit and equal penalty on the assessee and its director. The Tribunal held that although the assessee failed to exercise due diligence under Rule 7 of the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/Rule 7(2) of the 2004 Rules, there was no evidence of its involvement in the fraud committed by non-existent suppliers. Applying the HC ruling in Prayagraj Dyeing & Printing Mills, it treated the assessee as a holder in due course for valuable consideration without notice and held that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not invocable. Appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781869