CENVAT credit cannot be denied for a bona fide invoice error; penalty falls when the dispute is merely interpretative.

A bona fide clerical error in an invoice, such as an incorrect branch name, does not justify denial of CENVAT credit where the duty payment particulars are otherwise genuine; the credit was therefore allowed. For the remaining dispute on alleged excess payment, factual verification of supporting invoices was required, so that part was remanded to the original authority for fresh examination with an opportunity of hearing. Penalty was held unsustainable because the dispute was interpretative and there was no finding of mala fides, so the penalty was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cenvat credit could be denied merely because the invoice carried an erroneous branch name when the duty payment particulars were otherwise genuine; (ii) Whether the dispute relating to alleged excess payment and verification of supporting invoices required remand, and whether penalty was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether cenvat credit could be denied merely because the invoice carried an erroneous branch name when the duty payment particulars were otherwise genuine.

Analysis: The invoice in question was found to have been raised on the Mumbai branch by mistake. The defect was treated as a mistake by the service provider and not as a ground to deny credit where the duty payment particulars were genuine. The Tribunal accepted the contention that a technical error in the invoice should not defeat otherwise admissible credit.

Conclusion: Credit was held admissible and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the dispute relating to alleged excess payment and verification of supporting invoices required remand, and whether penalty was sustainable.

Analysis: For the remaining disputed amount, the Tribunal found that factual verification of the relevant documents was necessary and therefore remitted that part of the matter to the original authority. The Tribunal also held that the issues were interpretative in nature and did not involve mala fides, making the penalty unsustainable. Directions were issued to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing on remand.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for verification and the penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained partial relief, with one part of the demand allowed in its favour, one issue remitted for fresh verification, and the penalty deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide clerical defect in an invoice does not justify denial of credit where the underlying duty payment particulars are genuine, and penalty is not warranted in the absence of mala fides when the dispute turns on interpretative or verifiable factual issues.

---