Cenvat credit cannot be denied on suspicion alone when documents show receipt of inputs and no corroborative evidence exists.

Cenvat credit could not be denied merely on suspicion, transport discrepancies, or an investigation against the dealer when the assessee produced documentary evidence of receipt of inputs, including transport documents and payment records. Because the Revenue did not dispute those records or adduce independent corroborative evidence of non-receipt, the denial of credit was held unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside and the assessee's appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit was rightly denied on the allegation that inputs were not actually received from the registered dealer.

Analysis: The denial of credit rested on DGCEI investigation against the dealer and on an inference drawn from transport-related material. The appellant produced documentary evidence of receipt of goods, including transport documents and payment particulars, and the Revenue did not dispute those records or produce independent corroborative evidence to show non-receipt of inputs. The facts were found to be covered by earlier decisions holding that credit cannot be denied merely on suspicion or on incomplete transport evidence when the assessee's documentary record supports actual receipt of inputs.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant and the denial of Cenvat credit was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied on the basis of suspicion or transport discrepancies alone when the assessee produces documentary evidence showing receipt of inputs and the Revenue fails to adduce independent corroborative evidence of non-receipt.

---