CENVAT credit cannot be denied for missing invoice markings when input receipt, manufacture use, and invoice authenticity are established.

CENVAT credit could not be denied merely because invoices lacked the markings "original for buyer/duplicate for transporter" where receipt of inputs in the factory and their use in manufacture were undisputed. The invoices were authenticated by the Superintendent, which supported their genuineness. On that basis, the defect was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive ground to reject credit, and the assessee's credit claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit could be denied merely because the invoices did not bear the markings "original for buyer/duplicate for transporter", when the goods were received and used in manufacture and the invoices were authenticated by the Superintendent.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly received in the factory and used in the manufacture of final products, and this factual position was not disputed by the Revenue. The invoices, though lacking certain markings, had been authenticated by the Superintendent, which supported their genuineness. In such circumstances, the missing markings were treated as a procedural lapse and not a ground to reject the credit, especially when the department itself had authenticated the documents.

Conclusion: Credit could not be denied on the basis of the defect in the invoices, and the claim was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where receipt and use of inputs are established and the authenticity of invoices is supported by departmental authentication, credit cannot be denied for a mere procedural defect in the invoices.

---