Cenvat credit cannot be denied for hand-written invoice serial numbers where substantive entitlement is otherwise established.

Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices carried hand-written serial numbers rather than printed serial numbers under Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The rule requires invoices to be serially numbered, but it does not insist on printed numbering, unlike the earlier Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the inputs were duty-paid, received for manufacture, and supported by supplier and departmental verification, the substantive entitlement to credit was established. The procedural defect was therefore insufficient to invalidate the invoices or justify denial of credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the invoice bore a hand-written serial number instead of a printed serial number under Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001.

Analysis: Rule 11(2) requires invoices to be serially numbered, but it does not prescribe that the serial number must be printed. The earlier regime under Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 specifically required printed serial numbers, showing that the later rule deliberately omitted that requirement. The inputs were not disputed as duty-paid and received for manufacture, and supporting verification from the supplier and the jurisdictional Superintendent corroborated the invoices. Credit cannot be denied for a mere procedural discrepancy when the substantive conditions are satisfied.

Conclusion: The hand-written serial number did not make the invoices invalid, and denial of Cenvat credit was not justified.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute requires an invoice to be serially numbered but does not insist on a printed serial number, Cenvat credit cannot be denied solely for a hand-written serial number if the substantive entitlement is otherwise established.

---