https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117389 Cenvat credit was available only where the inputs described in the duty-paying documents were shown to have been received in the factory and used in manufacturing dutiable final products. The assessee could not prove that the goods mentioned in the invoice and the goods actually received were the same, and the supporting Form XXVII was rejected for lack of adequate corroboration. A claimed clerical mistake did not cure the mismatch in documentary evidence, so credit was held inadmissible and denial of credit was upheld. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:03:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117389 Cenvat credit was available only where the inputs described in the duty-paying documents were shown to have been received in the factory and used in manufacturing dutiable final products. The assessee could not prove that the goods mentioned in the invoice and the goods actually received were the same, and the supporting Form XXVII was rejected for lack of adequate corroboration. A claimed clerical mistake did not cure the mismatch in documentary evidence, so credit was held inadmissible and denial of credit was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117389