Cenvat credit cannot be denied for address mismatch alone when duty-paid inputs were received and used in manufacture.

Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because the dealer named in the invoices was not found at the stated address when the inputs were duty-paid, received in the factory, and used in manufacture. Where the invoice records contained the requisite particulars and the evidence showed only a shift of premises, without any finding that the dealer was non-existent, that no inputs were supplied, or that duty was unpaid, the credit remains admissible. The denial of credit on address mismatch alone was therefore improper, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the dealer shown in the invoices was not found at the address mentioned in the invoices, when the inputs were duty-paid, received in the factory, consumed in manufacture, and the invoices contained the requisite particulars.

Analysis: The invoice records and material on record showed that the dealer had shifted premises, but there was no finding that the dealer was non-existent, that no inputs were supplied, or that duty had not been paid on the inputs. There was also no finding that the inputs were not received in the factory or were not used in the manufacturing process. In the absence of such findings, and when the duty-paying documents contained the necessary particulars, the benefit of credit could not be denied on the ground of address mismatch alone.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was improper and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

---