Cenvat credit on additional duty remained admissible where inputs were received and used, despite supplementary invoices and differential duty certificates.

Cenvat credit on additional duty paid on inputs could not be denied for the period 1-4-2000 to 28-8-2000 merely because the credit was supported by supplementary invoices and differential duty certificates. The inputs had been received under prescribed invoices and were used in the manufacture of final products, so the substantive conditions for availment were satisfied. The absence of an express procedural provision in the new rules for that period did not defeat entitlement to credit. The earlier differential duty certificate requirement was procedural only and could not override established factual compliance. Credit was therefore admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on additional duty paid on inputs could be denied for the period 1-4-2000 to 28-8-2000 on the ground that the credit was supported by supplementary invoices and differential duty certificates, when the substantive conditions for receipt and use of inputs were satisfied.

Analysis: The inputs were received under invoices prescribed for credit and were used in the manufacture of final products. Additional duty on the same goods was later paid by the supplier and evidenced by supplementary invoices and departmental certificates. The absence of an express procedural provision in the new rules for that period did not alter the substantive entitlement to credit. The earlier rule regarding differential duty certificates was procedural and could not be used to defeat credit otherwise admissible when the factual foundation for availment stood established.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was unjustified and the benefit was admissible to the assessee.

---