CENVAT credit for invoiced goods remained available despite a consignee-name mismatch, where receipt and use were undisputed.

CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because invoices name a division or office instead of the registered factory where the receipt and use of duty-paid inputs or input services are undisputed. The consignee-name mismatch is treated as a procedural irregularity, and substantive compliance prevails when the department does not dispute receipt, utilisation, or duty-paid character. The text also reflects reliance on the doctrine of substantial compliance and a Board circular discouraging action for purely technical infirmities. On that basis, denial of credit on the incorrect address objection was not sustainable, and the demand, interest, and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied merely because invoices were issued in the name of the appellant's division or office and not in the name of the registered factory, when receipt and use of the inputs/input services were not in dispute.

Analysis: The claim for credit was founded on duly received duty-paid inputs and input services used in the manufacture of dutiable final products. The discrepancy in the description of the consignee on the invoices was treated as a procedural irregularity. In such circumstances, credit cannot be refused on a merely technical objection when substantive compliance is established and the departmental allegation does not dispute receipt, utilization, or duty-paid character. The Board's circular against issuing notices for purely technical infirmities and the settled line of decisions applying the doctrine of substantial compliance supported this view.

Conclusion: Denial of CENVAT credit on the ground of incorrect invoice address was not sustainable, and the demand, interest, and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---