Cenvat credit verification under Rule 7: rectification rejected where no apparent mistake was shown and new evidence was not admitted.

Rectification was not available because no mistake apparent from the record was shown. Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 required the credit recipient to satisfy himself that duty had been paid and to verify the identity and address of the manufacturer or supplier issuing the invoice; that obligation was not reduced by the goods moving through a merchant manufacturer or intermediary. The Board circular was treated only as a trade facilitation measure, not as a rule interpretation. A letter produced for the first time at the ROM stage was treated as new evidence and was not admitted, so the rectification application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether rectification of the earlier order was warranted on the ground that the factual differences from the cited precedent were not considered, that the supplier's existence satisfied the requirement under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and that the additional letter produced at the ROM stage could be relied upon.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the appellant's case did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record. Rule 7 required the person taking Cenvat credit to ensure that duty had been paid on the goods received by him, and this obligation was not diluted merely because the goods had passed through a merchant manufacturer or intermediary. The expression "manufacturer or supplier" covered the issuer of the invoice, and the manufacturer taking credit had to satisfy himself about the identity and address of such supplier. The Board circular relied upon was treated as a trade facilitation measure and not as an interpretation of the credit rules. The letter produced for the first time at the ROM stage was treated as new evidence and was not entertained.

Conclusion: The request for rectification was not maintainable and the ROM application was rejected.

---