Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods could be denied merely because the invoices bore the respondent's brand name and address instead of its company name.
Analysis: The goods were admittedly received by the respondent, used in the manufacture of final products, and duly recorded. The Board's circular under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 permitted credit to be allowed despite minor procedural lapses in declarations or invoices, provided duty payment and actual use in manufacture were established. The invoices carried the respondent's full address, and the use of the brand name with address sufficiently established ownership of the goods. On these facts, the denial of credit rested only on a procedural defect and not on any substantive deficiency.
Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was unjustified, and the allowance of credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) was in law.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the substantive entitlement to credit was established and the invoice defect was only a minor procedural lapse.
Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied for a mere procedural irregularity in the invoice when receipt of duty-paid goods, their use in manufacture, and their identification as the assessee's goods are otherwise established.