CENVAT credit survives clerical invoice errors when receipt, accounting and use of inputs are properly proved; extended limitation fails without fraud.

CENVAT credit is not to be denied where invoice particulars contain only clerical errors, if the inputs are shown through purchase orders, inward records, SAP documents and banking records to have been received, accounted for and used in the eligible unit. The note also states that the extended period of limitation is unavailable where there is no allegation of diversion, suppression, fraud or other wrongful conduct, and the discrepancy is merely procedural. On that basis, the demand was unsustainable, the credit disallowance was set aside, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit was inadmissible merely because the invoices carried the wrong plant number or registration particulars despite receipt and use of the inputs by the claimant unit; (ii) whether the Revenue could invoke the extended period of limitation in the absence of any allegation of diversion, fraud, or other wrongful conduct.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was inadmissible merely because the invoices carried the wrong plant number or registration particulars despite receipt and use of the inputs by the claimant unit.

Analysis: The invoices were found to suffer from clerical mistakes in describing the exact plant number, but the inputs were correlated through purchase orders, inward receipt records, SAP-generated documents, and banking records. The goods were received in the appellant's Plant No. 9, entered in the books, and used in manufacture. The existence of separate registrations and accounts for the different plants did not alter the factual position that the inputs reached the eligible unit and were duly accounted for.

Conclusion: The credit was admissible and could not be denied on the basis of the clerical errors in the invoices.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could invoke the extended period of limitation in the absence of any allegation of diversion, fraud, or other wrongful conduct.

Analysis: The record disclosed no allegation of diversion of raw materials, suppression of facts, or fraudulent activity. The transactions were recorded in the regular books of account and the discrepancy was only procedural in nature. On that factual foundation, the case did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained, the disallowance of credit was set aside, and the assessee was held entitled to consequential relief in law.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit cannot be denied for a merely clerical error in invoice particulars when receipt, accounting, payment, and use of inputs by the eligible unit are established, and the extended period of limitation is unavailable absent fraud, suppression, or diversion.

---