Cenvat credit on dealer invoices upheld where goods reached the manufacturer despite consignee mismatch.

Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the inputs were received from a second stage dealer and the invoices named another buyer while the appellant was shown as consignee. Where duty-paying invoices were issued and receipt of goods by the user manufacturer was established, such invoices remained valid for credit purposes, and a consignee-name mismatch did not by itself invalidate the documents. On that basis, the disallowance of credit, interest and penalty was held unsustainable, and the credit denial was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the inputs were received from a second stage dealer and the invoices showed another buyer while the appellant was mentioned as consignee.

Analysis: The inputs were admittedly received directly by the appellant from a second stage dealer under duty paying invoices. The Tribunal held that such invoices remain valid documents for credit where receipt of goods by the user manufacturer is established, and a mismatch between the named customer and the consignee does not by itself invalidate the documents. Applying that principle, the impugned order disallowing credit, interest and penalty was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

---