Cenvat credit on job-work returns cannot be denied for procedural invoice defects when records link the goods back clearly.

Cenvat credit under Rule 4(5)(a) could not be denied merely because job-worked inputs were returned under the job worker's invoices instead of the original challans, where the invoices carried the challan numbers and quantities and the receipt of processed goods was undisputed. The rule was treated as requiring records that establish return of the goods within the stipulated period, not any prescribed document format. A departmental circular issued under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 was not applied to the later rule. On that basis, the appellant was found to have a prima facie case, pre-deposit was waived, and recovery was stayed pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because inputs sent for job work were returned under the job worker's invoices instead of the original challans, and whether the appellant had a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The receipt of processed goods from the job workers was not disputed. The invoices issued by the job workers mentioned the challan numbers and quantity, enabling linkage with the goods originally sent for processing. Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not prescribe any particular document format for sending goods to job workers or their return, but only requires that the records establish receipt back within the stipulated period. The circular relied upon by the Department was issued in the context of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 and was not treated as governing the present rule.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit could not be denied on the stated procedural objection, and the appellant was held to have a prima facie case. The requirement of pre-deposit was waived and recovery was stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

---