Cenvat credit cannot be denied for buyer-consignee mismatch when inputs are received and properly recorded.

CESTAT Kolkata held that Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices named the appellant as consignee while showing its agent as buyer, where the goods were admittedly received in the appellant's factory and duly recorded in the statutory books. Rule 7(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 recognises dealer invoices as valid credit documents, and a mismatch in nomenclature does not invalidate them when receipt and correlation of inputs are established. On those facts, the credit claim was allowed and the denial was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices named the appellant as consignee while showing the agent as buyer, where the goods were admittedly received in the appellant's factory and recorded in its books.

Analysis: The invoices contained the appellant's name, ECC number, range, division and commissionerate details. There was no dispute that the inputs were actually received in the appellant's factory and accounted for in the statutory records. Rule 7(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 recognises invoices issued by a dealer as valid documents for availing credit. Following the consistent view that invoice nomenclature alone does not defeat credit when receipt and correlation of goods are established, the mismatch between buyer and consignee particulars did not render the documents invalid.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit and the denial of credit was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied on a mere discrepancy in the buyer and consignee descriptions in the invoice if the inputs are actually received by the claimant and duly accounted for, and the invoice is otherwise a valid document under the credit rules.

---