Cenvat credit cannot be denied on old depot address alone where receipt and use of goods are evidenced.

Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices continued to bear an old depot address after the supplier had shifted and obtained registration at a new location. The assessees' records showed receipt and use of the inputs, with no proof of input shortage, alternate raw material sources, or direct evidence that the goods were not transported; the statements relied on were also not tested by cross-examination. As the department failed to prove that the transactions were only paper transactions or that credit was wrongly availed, the demand and penalties were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were rightly denied Cenvat credit on the ground that the invoices were issued from a shifted or non-existent depot address and that the goods were allegedly not received, and whether the consequential demand and penalties could stand.

Analysis: The invoices were supported by duty-paid documents and the record showed that the supplier had shifted its depot and obtained registration at a new address, so the mere continuation of the old address on invoices did not by itself establish fraud. The appellants' books and inventory reflected receipt and use of MS ingots, and there was no finding of shortage of inputs at the factory or any satisfactory proof of an alternate source of raw material. The alleged non-transportation was not established by direct evidence, the vehicle-related discrepancies were not proved to be decisive, and the statements relied upon were not tested by cross-examination. In these circumstances, the department failed to discharge the burden of proving that the transactions were only paper transactions or that credit was wrongly availed.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was unsustainable, and the demand as well as the penalties could not be maintained.

---