CENVAT credit cannot be denied for procedural invoice defects when duty-paid nature is verified and substantive compliance exists.

CENVAT credit could not be denied where the goods were shown as duty paid and the objections related only to procedural defects in documentation. A mismatch between the importer named in the Bill of Entry and the branch office issuing the invoices was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive defect, and the allegation that invoices were issued before port clearance was found insubstantial. Since the authority was required to verify duty-paid nature and sufficiency of particulars before proceeding on procedural grounds, denial of credit was unjustified and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on the ground that the invoices lacked certain particulars, the Bill of Entry stood in the name of a different branch office, and the invoices were issued before clearance of the goods from the port.

Analysis: The invoices were not disputed as to duty-paid nature, and the only objection was to procedural defects in documentation. The circular relied upon required the jurisdictional authority to verify the duty-paid nature of the goods and the sufficiency of particulars before issuing a notice on procedural grounds. The defects pointed out, including mismatch between the importer named in the Bill of Entry and the branch issuing the invoices, were treated as procedural lapses rather than substantive defects. The allegation that invoices were issued before port clearance was also found to be insubstantial.

Conclusion: Denial of CENVAT credit was unjustified, and the credit was allowed to the assessee.

---