Cenvat credit requires a valid duplicate invoice and verifiable receipt of inputs; other copies or incomplete documents are insufficient.

Duplicate copy of the invoice was treated as the valid duty paying document for Cenvat credit under the Central Excise Rules, so credit taken on an original or extra copy without permission was inadmissible. Where the document did not identify the input received in the factory, credit was also disallowed because receipt of the relevant input could not be verified. The argument that substantial benefit should survive procedural lapses was rejected on these facts, and the credit disallowance was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be allowed when the credit was taken on the basis of an original or extra copy of the invoice instead of the duplicate copy, and when in some cases no proper duty paying document was produced or the document did not identify the input received in the factory.

Analysis: The duplicate copy of the invoice was treated as the valid duty paying document under the Central Excise Rules. Credit taken on any other copy of the invoice, without permission, was held to be unavailable. Where the duty paying document did not contain the name of the input, the credit was also held inadmissible because the receipt of the relevant input in the factory could not be verified. The plea that substantial benefit should not be denied for procedural lapses was rejected in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The credit was rightly disallowed and the appeal failed.

---