Cenvat credit should not be denied for technical invoice errors where duty-paid goods were received, used, and fully disclosed.

Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because invoices or bills of entry show a head office, another unit, or the pre-merger name of the assessee, where receipt and use of duty-paid capital goods are undisputed and the named entity has merged with the claimant. Prior Board clarification was relied on to treat such defects as technical and not fatal to credit eligibility. The extended period of limitation is also unavailable where monthly ER-1 returns and supporting documents disclose the credit availment and the department is already aware of the practice. Credit already reversed and not contested remains sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices or bills of entry mentioned the assessee's head office address, another unit's address, or the name of a merged entity, where receipt and use of capital goods were not disputed; (ii) Whether the demand was time-barred and the extended period could be invoked when the credit availment and supporting documents had been disclosed in the ER-1 returns and the department was already aware of the practice.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices or bills of entry mentioned the assessee's head office address, another unit's address, or the name of a merged entity, where receipt and use of capital goods were not disputed.

Analysis: The denial was founded mainly on document particulars such as the head office address, another unit's address, or the pre-merger name of the company. The Tribunal noted that the Board had earlier clarified that credit should not be denied merely because the bill of entry stands in the name of the registered office or head office. It further held that where the duty-paid nature of the goods, their receipt, and their use were not disputed, and where the entity named in the documents had merged with the appellant, denial of credit on such technical grounds was not justified.

Conclusion: The credit was held admissible on these grounds and the denial was set aside, except for the amount that had already been admitted and reversed by the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was time-barred and the extended period could be invoked when the credit availment and supporting documents had been disclosed in the ER-1 returns and the department was already aware of the practice.

Analysis: The appellant had filed monthly ER-1 returns along with copies of the duty-paying documents, putting the department in possession of full particulars of the credits availed. The Tribunal also noted that a prior show cause notice on a similar issue had already been dropped in earlier proceedings. On that basis, it held that the facts were within the department's knowledge and that invocation of the extended period was not legally sustainable.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be barred by limitation insofar as it rested on the extended period.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside on the substantive credit dispute and on limitation, but the credit amount already reversed and not contested was sustained.

---