Cenvat credit cannot be denied for technical invoice defects where duty-paid inputs and receipt are undisputed.

Cenvat credit on duty-paid chassis could not be denied merely because the invoices were first issued in the name of another office and later endorsed or reissued in the assessee's favour. The chassis were admittedly received by the assessee for fabrication on job work basis, and the dispute was confined to invoice form rather than duty payment or receipt of goods. Where the duty-paid character of the inputs, their receipt, and their use in manufacture are established, technical defects in invoicing do not justify denial of credit. The assessee's credit claim was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit on duty-paid chassis could be denied because the invoices were first issued in the name of another office and later endorsed or reissued in the assessee's favour. (ii) Whether credit could be disallowed on a merely technical objection when the duty-paid nature of the chassis and their receipt by the assessee were not in dispute.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit on duty-paid chassis could be denied because the invoices were first issued in the name of another office and later endorsed or reissued in the assessee's favour.

Analysis: The chassis were admittedly received by the assessee for fabrication of bodies on job work basis. The invoices issued from Jamshedpur and Bombay were co-related, and the requisite particulars showed that the same goods had moved through the company's offices. The dispute was confined to the form of invoicing and did not show absence of duty payment or non-receipt of the goods.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit could not be denied on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether credit could be disallowed on a merely technical objection when the duty-paid nature of the chassis and their receipt by the assessee were not in dispute.

Analysis: Sub-rule (11) of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules reflected the principle that, where duty-paid character of inputs and receipt by the assessee are satisfied, credit should not be denied merely because the invoices are not technically perfect. In the absence of any dispute on the duty-paid character of the chassis, their receipt, and their use in fabrication, denial of credit on procedural grounds was unwarranted.

Conclusion: Denial of credit was unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the assessee's credit claim was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied on technical invoice defects where the duty-paid nature of the inputs and their receipt by the assessee are established and undisputed.

---