Cenvat credit and invoice description mismatch: mere nomenclature difference is not enough to deny credit without proof of non-receipt.

Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because invoices describe inputs as CRC sheets/strips when the assessee claims receipt and use of HR sheets/strips. The majority accepted credit because the goods were entered in the records, used in manufacture, and the allegation of non-receipt was not supported by effective investigation or other cogent evidence. A mere mismatch in invoice nomenclature, without proof that the inputs were not actually received or consumed, was insufficient to disallow credit. The contrary view treated the description discrepancy as part of a wider factual challenge, but that approach did not prevail.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on the ground that the invoices described the goods as CRC sheets/strips while the assessees claimed to have received and used HR sheets/strips, and whether the alleged mismatch in description by itself established non-receipt of inputs.

Analysis: The majority found that the record did not support the allegation that the inputs covered by the invoices were never received in the factory. Reliance was placed on the fact that the goods were accounted for in the appellant's records, used in manufacture, and that no effective investigation was carried out with the transporter or other source to disprove actual receipt. The majority also noted that a mere discrepancy in nomenclature, without proof that the goods were not received or used, was insufficient to deny credit. The contrary view treated the discrepancy as part of a broader factual pattern showing that the invoices were invalid and the burden under the credit rules had not been discharged, but that view did not prevail.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit could not be denied merely on the basis of the description mismatch, and the credit was held admissible in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where receipt and use of duty-paid inputs are not discredited by cogent evidence, a mere variation in invoice description does not, by itself, justify denial of Cenvat credit.

---