Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices upheld where differential duty was actually paid and procedural defects could not defeat credit.

Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because it was taken on supplementary invoices issued for differential duty paid after finalisation of provisional assessment or price escalation. Where the supplier had actually paid the duty and the recipient's credit matched that duty, the supplementary invoices constituted valid duty-paying documents for the relevant period. The procedural requirement governing credit documents could not override the substantive principle that credit follows duty paid, and a defect in the invoice form was only procedural, not substantive. Credit on the supplementary invoices was therefore admissible, the Revenue's challenge failed, and the cross-objection did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because it was availed on supplementary invoices issued for differential duty paid on account of finalisation of provisional assessment or price escalation, and whether such invoices were valid duty-paying documents for the relevant period.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the nature of the credit and the effect of the document used to avail it. The duty had in fact been paid by the supplier, and the credit claimed by the recipient matched duty actually paid. The restrictive procedural rule governing documents for availing credit could not override the basic principle that credit follows duty paid. Where supplementary invoices were issued to rectify an incorrect duty rate at the time of clearance and reflected actual differential duty payment, the defect was procedural and not substantive. Denial of credit was therefore unwarranted.

Conclusion: Credit on the supplementary invoices was admissible and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing credit was sustained and the Revenue appeal was rejected; the cross objection, being merely a reply to the appeal, also did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural requirements relating to duty-paying documents cannot be used to deny credit where duty has in fact been paid and the credit claimed is equal to the duty so paid, including credit supported by supplementary invoices evidencing differential duty.

---