Cenvat credit cannot be denied for technical invoice defects when job-work duty is debited and no revenue loss occurs.

Cenvat credit could not be denied on a purely procedural objection where duty had already been debited on goods sent for job work, credit was taken only after the converted goods were returned, and no revenue loss resulted. The incorrect description of the assessee as consignee on the invoices was treated as a technical lapse, so substantive credit remained admissible. As the credit denial failed, the basis for penalty also did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices showed the assessee as consignee when the duty had already been debited and the goods were sent to a job worker and returned after conversion, and whether penalty was sustainable in such circumstances.

Analysis: The duty on the goods sent for job work had first been debited and credit was taken only on the return of the converted goods. Since the process did not result in any loss of revenue, the irregularity in the manner of invoicing was treated as a technical lapse. In such a situation, substantive credit could not be denied on a purely procedural objection, and the foundation for penalty also did not survive.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was not justified and the assessee succeeded on the issue.

---