CENVAT credit cannot be denied for invoice-description mismatch when inputs were received, recorded, and used in production.

CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because a dealer's invoice describes inputs differently from the manufacturer's delivery challan, where the invoices satisfy Rule 9 requirements and the assessee has actually received, accounted for, and used the goods in manufacture. The mismatch in description or dimensions was treated as a dealer-side irregularity, possibly arising from handling or simple processing of the goods, and not as proof that the assessee took credit without receipt or use. In the absence of evidence rebutting receipt and consumption of the inputs, the credit remained admissible to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied to the assessee on the ground that the dealer's invoices described the inputs differently from the delivery challans issued by the manufacturer to the dealer, when the inputs were received, accounted for and used in the manufacture of final products.

Analysis: The demand rested on a mismatch between the dimensions/specifications in the manufacturer's delivery challans and the dealer's invoices. The relevant invoices contained the particulars required under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and there was no dispute that the assessee had placed purchase orders, received the inputs, entered them in the statutory records and used them in production. The variation in description was found to be attributable to the dealer's handling of the goods, including possible cutting or similar simple processes, and any irregularity in passing on the credit was held to lie at the dealer's end. In the absence of evidence that the assessee had not received or used the goods, the credit could not be denied merely because the dealer may have committed an offence or lapse.

Conclusion: The denial of CENVAT credit was not justified, and the assessee was entitled to retain the credit.

---