Cenvat credit documentation rules: denial failed where goods receipt, valid certificates, and minor discrepancies supported entitlement.

Cenvat credit could not be denied for non-production of a covering letter where that objection was outside the remand scope and the letter had been furnished in de novo proceedings. Credit based on invoice records was upheld because the documents showed receipt of goods in the factory, and later clearance of inputs as such on reversal of credit did not affect the original entitlement. The department's insistence on a transporter's copy or defacement was held unnecessary for the relevant period, and credit could not be refused merely because the invoice copy produced was not the one preferred by the department. Credit supported by Certificate A was also admissible, and the minor discrepancy claim failed for lack of any specific adverse finding, with penalty not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of Cenvat credit on the grounds of non-production of a covering letter, use of original or duplicate invoice copies, availment on the basis of Certificate A, and minor discrepancies was sustainable, and whether penalty could survive.

Analysis: The denial of credit on the first two heads was held to be beyond the remand direction and beyond the scope of the earlier adjudication, since the only original objection was non-production of the covering letter, which had been furnished in the de novo proceedings. The invoices and accompanying records established receipt of the goods in the factory, and the subsequent clearance of inputs as such on reversal of credit did not undermine the initial availment. The insistence on transporter's copy or defacement was held not legally required for the relevant period, and credit could not be denied merely because the invoice produced was not the particular copy insisted upon by the department. The credit supported by Certificate A was found admissible because the certificate evidenced payment of differential duty and constituted a valid basis for credit. The minor discrepancy item was also allowed in the absence of any specific adverse finding.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was held unsustainable, the credit was allowed in full, and penalty was set aside.

---