Cenvat credit cannot be denied on alleged fake invoices where goods receipt, bona fides, and bank payments are established.

Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices were alleged to be fake or parallel where receipt of goods was not disproved. The Tribunal accepted that discrepancies such as vehicle numbers or timing mismatches, without shortages at the consignee end, were insufficient to reject credit when payments were made through banking channels and the transaction was bona fide. It also held that the buyer was not required to verify whether the supplier had discharged duty, and denial of credit again on the same goods would amount to double taxation. The order allowing credit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on the ground that the invoices were alleged to be fake or parallel and that the inputs were not proved to have been received in the factory.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had examined the relevant provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and had relied on case law to hold that receipt of goods cannot be doubted merely on discrepancies such as vehicle numbers or timing mismatches. It was found that no shortages were proved against the consignee, that payments including duty had been made through banking channels, that the transaction was bona fide, and that duty had already been confirmed against the supplier. The Tribunal also accepted the view that a buyer is not required to verify whether the supplier has discharged duty on the goods supplied, and that denial of credit on the same goods again would amount to double taxation.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was not liable to be denied, and the order allowing credit was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---