Cenvat credit on rectified documents allowed where wrong address was corrected and receipt of goods was not disputed.

Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices carried an incorrect address where the supplier later rectified the error and confirmed the correction, and there was no finding that the goods were not received or that credit had been taken elsewhere. Credit was also admissible on two Bills of Entry rectified by Customs, while the third Bill of Entry was remanded for verification of whether the Head Office had already availed the credit. On the facts recorded, penalty was not warranted and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on invoices mentioning a wrong address that was later rectified by the supplier; (ii) whether Cenvat credit could be denied on Bills of Entry where the address was subsequently rectified by the Customs authorities, and whether the remaining Bill of Entry required verification as to credit taken by the Head Office; and (iii) whether penalty was imposable.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on invoices mentioning a wrong address that was later rectified by the supplier.

Analysis: The only objection on these invoices was the incorrect address. The supplier had rectified the mistake and issued a certificate confirming the correction. No finding was recorded that the goods were not received in the factory or that any other unit had availed the credit.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was admissible on these invoices and denial was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on Bills of Entry where the address was subsequently rectified by the Customs authorities, and whether the remaining Bill of Entry required verification as to credit taken by the Head Office.

Analysis: Two Bills of Entry were found to have been rectified by the Customs authorities themselves, and the corrected address was verified. For the remaining Bill of Entry, the crucial question was whether the Head Office had already availed the credit, which required factual verification.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was admissible on the two rectified Bills of Entry, and the third Bill of Entry was remanded for verification of credit availed by the Head Office.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty was imposable.

Analysis: Once the substantive credit issue was accepted substantially in the assessee's favour, no separate penalty was warranted on the facts recorded.

Conclusion: No penalty was imposable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the principal credit disputes relating to the invoices and two Bills of Entry, while the remaining Bill of Entry was sent back for verification, and the penalty was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely for an incorrect address in the supporting document where the mistake is rectified and the receipt of goods and identity of the transaction are otherwise established; a remaining discrepancy may be sent back for factual verification if double availment of credit is in issue.

---