https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75312 Duplicate copy of the invoice was treated as the valid duty paying document for Cenvat credit under the Central Excise Rules, so credit taken on an original or extra copy without permission was inadmissible. Where the document did not identify the input received in the factory, credit was also disallowed because receipt of the relevant input could not be verified. The argument that substantial benefit should survive procedural lapses was rejected on these facts, and the credit disallowance was upheld. en-us Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75312 Duplicate copy of the invoice was treated as the valid duty paying document for Cenvat credit under the Central Excise Rules, so credit taken on an original or extra copy without permission was inadmissible. Where the document did not identify the input received in the factory, credit was also disallowed because receipt of the relevant input could not be verified. The argument that substantial benefit should survive procedural lapses was rejected on these facts, and the credit disallowance was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75312