https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123224 CENVAT credit could not be denied merely because invoices lacked the markings "original for buyer/duplicate for transporter" where receipt of inputs in the factory and their use in manufacture were undisputed. The invoices were authenticated by the Superintendent, which supported their genuineness. On that basis, the defect was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive ground to reject credit, and the assessee's credit claim was upheld. en-us Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:57:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123224 CENVAT credit could not be denied merely because invoices lacked the markings "original for buyer/duplicate for transporter" where receipt of inputs in the factory and their use in manufacture were undisputed. The invoices were authenticated by the Superintendent, which supported their genuineness. On that basis, the defect was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive ground to reject credit, and the assessee's credit claim was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123224