Secondary evidence supports cenvat credit when the duplicate invoice is lost and receipt of inputs is otherwise proved.

Cenvat credit was held admissible on the basis of a quadruplicate invoice where the duplicate copy was lost, because reliable secondary evidence supported receipt of the inputs. The Tribunal treated the quadruplicate copy, supplier records and an affidavit as sufficient proof, and applied the principle that secondary evidence is admissible when primary evidence is unavailable. It also relied on earlier Tribunal rulings accepting extra invoice copies in similar circumstances. The denial of credit was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether cenvat credit can be denied merely because the appellant produced a quadruplicate copy of the invoice instead of the duplicate copy, when the duplicate copy was lost and receipt of inputs was otherwise supported by affidavit and supplier records.

Analysis: The dispute was confined to the evidentiary value of the quadruplicate invoice. The record showed that the duplicate copy accompanying the goods was lost, but the supplier later furnished the quadruplicate copy, which evidenced supply of the inputs. An affidavit regarding receipt of the inputs was also on record. In such circumstances, the Tribunal held that when primary evidence is unavailable, secondary evidence is admissible, and reliance was placed on the principle recognized under the proviso to Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Earlier Tribunal decisions had accepted extra copies of invoices for cenvat credit in similar situations.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on the basis of the quadruplicate copy of the invoice was held admissible, and the denial of credit was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the duplicate invoice is lost, cenvat credit cannot be denied if the assessee produces a reliable secondary copy of the invoice and other evidence establishes receipt of the inputs.

---