Cenvat credit cannot be denied for a rectifiable invoice endorsement defect when receipt and use of inputs are undisputed.

Cenvat credit could not be denied solely because input invoices carried buyer endorsement later or only on Xerox copies, where receipt and use of the goods in the factory were undisputed. Under the Cenvat Credit Rules, the defect was treated as a documentary irregularity rather than a substantive failure of eligibility, and the missing endorsement was held rectifiable. On that basis, denial of credit on the ground of an imperfect document was unjustified, and the credit was held admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the input invoices bore buyer endorsement subsequently or on Xerox copies, when receipt and use of the goods were not disputed.

Analysis: The disputed credit related to invoices on which the buyers' endorsement was treated as absent at the time of scrutiny. The relevant legal framework under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 required proper documentary support for availing credit. However, the defect noticed was only a documentary irregularity. The receipt of the goods and their use in the factory were not in dispute, and the omission of endorsement was held to be rectifiable. In such circumstances, denial of credit on the sole ground of an imperfect document was not justified.

Conclusion: Credit was admissible and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing Cenvat credit on the disputed invoices was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere defect in endorsement on input invoices, where receipt and use of goods are undisputed, is a rectifiable omission and cannot by itself defeat Cenvat credit.

---