https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155110 Under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001, the manufacturer's invoice was the relevant duty paying document for the disputed period, so credit could not be denied merely because it was taken on the original invoice rather than the duplicate copy. The earlier regime under Rule 52A and Rule 57G, where the duplicate copy had significance, no longer governed the period in question. A cited precedent was distinguished because it involved an office copy or extra copy, not the manufacturer's invoice. In the absence of any applicable rule barring such availment, CENVAT credit was held admissible and the denial unsustainable. en-us Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:06:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155110 Under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001, the manufacturer's invoice was the relevant duty paying document for the disputed period, so credit could not be denied merely because it was taken on the original invoice rather than the duplicate copy. The earlier regime under Rule 52A and Rule 57G, where the duplicate copy had significance, no longer governed the period in question. A cited precedent was distinguished because it involved an office copy or extra copy, not the manufacturer's invoice. In the absence of any applicable rule barring such availment, CENVAT credit was held admissible and the denial unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155110