Endorsement on invoices is mandatory for Cenvat credit where documents are not issued in the manufacturer's name.

Cenvat credit under Rule 7(1)(e)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was available only where documents were endorsed on their face in favour of the manufacturer for the full consignment. Invoices issued in the names of other persons, with different addresses, and supported only by a separate endorsement letter did not satisfy the prescribed mode of credit availing. The endorsement requirement was treated as a substantive safeguard, not a mere procedural formality. On that basis, the credit was held inadmissible and the appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on invoices not issued in the appellant's name and endorsed only by a separate letter instead of endorsement on the body of the documents under Rule 7(1)(e)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.

Analysis: The rule permits credit on documents issued in the name of a person involved in the specified textile trade or activity, provided the documents are endorsed in full for the entire consignment in favour of the manufacturer. The requirement of endorsement on the document itself was treated as a deliberate safeguard and not a dispensable formality. Since the invoices were not endorsed on their face and were issued in the name of other persons with different addresses, the Tribunal held that the prescribed manner of availing credit was not followed. The separate-letter endorsement was found insufficient to satisfy the rule.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was not admissible, and the appeal was rejected.

---