Cenvat credit entitlement denied where invoice records were inconsistent and supporting documents were not properly authenticated.

Cenvat credit requires the claimant to prove entitlement through reliable and properly supported evidence. Where the invoice date and other particulars in the record did not consistently match, a plea of clerical error was rejected, and the supporting paper was found unauthenticated because it lacked endorsement by the Range Superintendent. Mere cross-references between documents were insufficient to establish the claim. In the absence of compliance with the prescribed procedure for loss or substitution of supporting documents, the credit claim could not be sustained. The denial of cenvat credit was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices and supporting documents produced, despite an alleged clerical error in the invoice date and non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for loss or substitution of supporting documents.

Analysis: Cenvat credit is a benefit for which the claimant must establish entitlement by proper evidence. The document relied upon did not satisfactorily support the claim because the dates and particulars in the record did not match consistently, and the plea of clerical mistake was not accepted. The other document also lacked proper authentication by the Range Superintendent, and mere entries linking one paper to another were insufficient. In the absence of compliance with the prescribed procedure for dealing with missing supporting documents, the claim could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The claim for cenvat credit was rightly denied and the appeal failed.

---