2026 (3) TMI 1370 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit cannot be denied for clerical invoice defects when records prove receipt and duty-paid inputs.

A clerical discrepancy in the consignee name and a revised invoice did not justify denial of Cenvat credit where contemporaneous records, including the ... Entitlement to avail Cenvat credit on the disputed invoice despite discrepancy in the consignee name and variance in the revised invoice records - Documentary proof of receipt and utilisation of inputs. CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal held that denial of credit could not rest merely on discrepancies arising when the supplier issued a second invoice to correct the consignee and buyer details. It found that the contemporaneous records, including the inward register, purchase order referred to in both invoices, ledger and purchase records, transporter-related documents, the supplier's stock account and ER-1 return, established actual purchase, despatch, receipt and subsequent utilisation or disposal of the inputs in accordance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since the Revenue produced no rebuttal to this documentary evidence, the defect in the invoice particulars was treated as a technical irregularity and not a ground to deny substantive credit. [Paras 5] The assessee was held entitled to the CENVAT credit, and the denial of credit with consequential penalties was set aside. Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the disputed credit was admissible because the receipt and use of the duty-paid inputs stood proved by sufficient documentary evidence, notwithstanding defects in the corrected invoice. Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the disputed invoice despite discrepancy in the consignee name and variance in the revised invoice records.Analysis: The documentary record showed the purchase order, supplier's invoice particulars, proof of payment, transporter documents, inward register entries, stock records, and the supplier's duty-paid clearances. The discrepancy arose from correction of the consignee's name and subsequent issuance of a revised invoice, but the total value, duty paid, and transaction particulars remained consistent. The materials on record established receipt of the inputs in the appellant's factory and their use or disposal in the ordinary course of business. No rebuttal sufficient to displace this evidence was produced by the Revenue.Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the Cenvat credit and denial of credit was not justified.Ratio Decidendi: A procedural or clerical defect in invoicing does not justify denial of Cenvat credit where contemporaneous and corroborative evidence establishes receipt of duty-paid inputs and their accounting in the recipient's records.