Cenvat credit cannot be denied for a rectified invoice error when duty-paid goods were received and used in manufacture.

Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices mentioned the dealer registration number instead of the manufacturing unit registration number, where the goods were duty paid, actually received in the factory, properly recorded in statutory books, and used in manufacture. The supplier's mistake was clarified and later rectified, and the defect was treated as a clerical or typographical error. On these facts, denial of credit was unjustified, and the assessee was entitled to the credit with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the supplier mentioned the dealer registration number instead of the manufacturing unit registration number in the invoices, when the goods were received, duty paid, accounted for, used in manufacture, and the invoice defect was later rectified.

Analysis: The credit was taken on invoices showing the appellant's main address, but the registration number reflected the dealer premises due to a supplier's mistake. The discrepancy was clarified before the authorities and subsequently rectified by the supplier. The goods were found to have been actually received in the factory, were duty paid, were entered in statutory records, and were used in the manufacture of final products cleared on payment of duty. In these circumstances, a mere typographical error in the invoice could not justify denial of credit.

Conclusion: Denial of Cenvat credit was unjustified and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied for a rectified clerical or typographical error in invoice particulars where receipt of duty-paid goods, their accounting, and their use in manufacture are undisputed.

---