Cenvat credit on receipt of inputs upheld where documentary evidence outweighed uncorroborated transporter records.

Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely on transporter records where the invoices, check-post records, transporter-linked documents and the assessee's and dealer's records support receipt of inputs. The dispute depended on factual appreciation of whether the goods covered by the invoices were actually received. As the revenue relied only on a transporter register describing the goods as miscellaneous and produced no independent corroborative evidence to show non-delivery, the Tribunal's finding that receipt was proved was neither unreasonable nor perverse. On that basis, the High Court found no substantial question of law for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on the basis of transporter records alleging non-receipt of inputs, when the documentary evidence showed receipt of goods and there was no independent corroborative evidence to disprove such receipt.

Analysis: The dispute turned on appreciation of evidence as to whether the assessee had actually received the inputs covered by the invoices. The Department relied mainly on transporter records showing description of goods as miscellaneous, while the official records at the check post, the invoices, the transporter-related documents, and the assessee's and dealer's records supported receipt of copper ingots and allied inputs. The Tribunal found that there was no independent evidence to establish that the goods were not delivered to the dealer or the assessee, and that the revenue's case rested only on the transporter register without corroboration. The High Court found this factual appreciation to be proper and held that the conclusion reached was neither unreasonable nor perverse.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit could not be denied on the material relied upon by the revenue, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

---