CENVAT credit on port services allowed on substantiated invoices, with remaining disputed credit remanded for document verification.

CENVAT credit was allowed where port service invoices, though raised in the name of the customs house agent, bore the appellant's name and were supported by debit notes and a declaration that credit had not been taken elsewhere. To that extent, the documentary record sufficiently established receipt of eligible services and the claim. For the balance, the existing material was inadequate to verify entitlement, so the matter was remanded for production and scrutiny of proper invoices and supporting documents before the original authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on the basis of invoices for port services raised in the name of the customs house agent but relating to the appellant. (ii) Whether the remaining disputed credit required reconsideration on production of proper invoices and supporting documents.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on the basis of invoices for port services raised in the name of the customs house agent but relating to the appellant.

Analysis: The invoices issued by the port authority contained the appellant's name and related to services actually received for the appellant through its customs house agent. Supporting debit notes and the declaration from the customs house agent indicated that credit had not been availed elsewhere. The documents matched to the extent produced, though not for the entire disputed amount.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit was held admissible to the extent the claim was substantiated by the produced invoices, debit notes, and declaration.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining disputed credit required reconsideration on production of proper invoices and supporting documents.

Analysis: For the balance disputed invoices, the existing material was insufficient to sustain the entire claim. Since the appellant asserted that proper invoices were available and could be produced before the original authority, the matter required verification on documentary proof.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for reconsideration of the remaining disputed credit on production of invoices to the satisfaction of the original authority.

Final Conclusion: The credit dispute was not finally decided in full and was sent back for limited factual verification, with partial relief on the credit already substantiated.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit can be allowed only when the supporting documents sufficiently establish the receipt of eligible services and the claim may be remanded where the record is incomplete for full adjudication.

---