Substantial compliance for Cenvat credit defeats denial based on technical defects in invoices and bills of entry.

Cenvat credit could not be denied for invoices lacking pre-printed serial numbers where serial numbers were stamped by franking machine, because the document requirement was substantially complied with. Credit also remained available on invoices showing the factory as consignee even though the head office was listed as first destination, since the goods were received and used in the factory. Similarly, additional customs duty credit could not be rejected merely because the bills of entry named the head office, where the duty-paid goods had in fact reached the factory and were used in manufacture. The adverse demand, interest, and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on invoices not bearing pre-printed serial numbers but bearing serial numbers stamped by a franking machine, whether credit could be denied where the invoices named the factory as consignee though the head office was mentioned as first destination, and whether credit of additional customs duty could be denied because the bills of entry stood in the name of the head office while the goods were received in the factory.

Analysis: The goods covered by the invoices and bills of entry were admittedly received at the factory and used in manufacture, and the duty was paid on those goods. As to the invoices, stamping of serial numbers by franking machine was treated as sufficient compliance with the requirement of Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, and the absence of pre-printed numbers did not invalidate the documents. As to the three invoices mentioning the head office as first destination, the factory remained the consignee and there was no basis to deny credit. As to the bills of entry, credit could not be denied merely because the head office name appeared when the goods had in fact reached the factory and were used there.

Conclusion: Denial of Cenvat credit on all the disputed documents was unsustainable and the demand, interest, and penalty were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the Cenvat credit claimed, and the adverse orders were reversed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied on a mere technical defect in the form of the document where the duty-paid goods are actually received in the factory and the documentary requirement is substantially complied with.

---