https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52741 Supplementary invoices issued for differential duty remained valid for Cenvat credit where the Revenue did not establish that the duty became recoverable because of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts under Rule 57AE(1)(i). The differential duty had been paid pursuant to valuation objections, and the supplier's invoices were therefore admissible documents for additional credit; the credit denial was unsustainable. Because the penalties were based on the same unproven allegations and the failed denial of credit, the foundation for penal action also disappeared. The impugned orders were set aside and the assessee was granted relief on both credit eligibility and consequential penalty liability. en-us Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:20:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52741 Supplementary invoices issued for differential duty remained valid for Cenvat credit where the Revenue did not establish that the duty became recoverable because of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts under Rule 57AE(1)(i). The differential duty had been paid pursuant to valuation objections, and the supplier's invoices were therefore admissible documents for additional credit; the credit denial was unsustainable. Because the penalties were based on the same unproven allegations and the failed denial of credit, the foundation for penal action also disappeared. The impugned orders were set aside and the assessee was granted relief on both credit eligibility and consequential penalty liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52741