Cenvat credit entitlement upheld where official records and corroborative evidence proved receipt and use of disputed inputs.

Cenvat credit was supported by contemporaneous official records showing receipt of material against the disputed invoices, and the department failed to dislodge that certificate. Corroborative evidence, including sales tax records, banking proof, excise records of production and clearance, and a CBI report, reinforced the genuineness of manufacture and export. Adverse reliance only on ICC entries, transport records, and untested witness statements without cross-examination was insufficient to deny credit. The note states that, on this evidentiary footing, the assessee was entitled to Cenvat credit and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to Cenvat credit on the disputed inputs in view of the certificate issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer and the evidence relied upon by the department.

Analysis: The certificate issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer recorded receipt of material against each disputed invoice, and the department did not successfully dislodge that certificate. The adjudicating authority had also noted circumstantial evidence indicating purchase and consumption of FO/LDO, including sales tax records, banking proof of payment, excise records showing production and clearance, and a CBI report supporting genuineness of manufacture and export. In that background, the adverse inference drawn only from ICC entries, transport records, and untested statements of witnesses without cross-examination was insufficient to deny credit.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to Cenvat credit, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied when contemporaneous official records and other corroborative evidence establish receipt and use of inputs, and the adverse material against the assessee is untested or inconclusive.

---