Cenvat credit on invoices lacking consignee details cannot be denied if other statutory particulars and receipt are proved

Cenvat credit could not be denied solely because invoices omitted the consignee's name where the proviso to Rule 9(2) permitted credit if the prescribed particulars were otherwise available and receipt and accounting of goods were established. The document treats the consignee's name as a non-essential particular in that proviso. Because the lower authorities had not examined whether the remaining statutory conditions were satisfied on the record, the matter required scrutiny of the invoices and books of account. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration on eligibility of credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices did not contain the consignee's name, and whether the matter required fresh adjudication under the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The document requirement under the Cenvat Credit Rules was treated as subject to the proviso permitting credit where the prescribed particulars were otherwise available and the receipt and accounting of goods were established. The absence of the consignee's name was held not to be one of the essential particulars in the proviso. The lower authorities had not examined whether the remaining statutory conditions were satisfied on the record, and a proper determination required scrutiny of the invoices and books of account.

Conclusion: Denial of credit solely on the absence of consignee details was not sustainable on the existing reasoning, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

---