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 purchase order, supplier invoice details, payment proof, transporter documents, inward entries, stock records, and duty-paid clearance evidence, consistently showed receipt of the inputs and their accounting in the recipient's factory. The record established that the transaction particulars, value, and duty remained unchanged, and the Revenue failed to rebut the corroborative evidence. Credit was therefore admissible, and denial of Cenvat credit was not justified.

---

---

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.

---