https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205931 CENVAT credit was allowed where duty-paid goods covered by genuine manufacturer's invoices were admittedly received through a depot, because the depot routing was treated as a procedural lapse and not a ground to deny substantive credit. However, credit taken on original invoices without compliance with the prescribed procedure for loss of the duplicate copy was disallowed, as the rule required intimation and satisfaction of the jurisdictional officer. On the wrongly taken credit, interest followed and penalty was sustained, though reduced. The credit demand relating to the depot movement was deleted, while the other credit disallowance and consequential interest and reduced penalty were upheld. en-us Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205931 CENVAT credit was allowed where duty-paid goods covered by genuine manufacturer's invoices were admittedly received through a depot, because the depot routing was treated as a procedural lapse and not a ground to deny substantive credit. However, credit taken on original invoices without compliance with the prescribed procedure for loss of the duplicate copy was disallowed, as the rule required intimation and satisfaction of the jurisdictional officer. On the wrongly taken credit, interest followed and penalty was sustained, though reduced. The credit demand relating to the depot movement was deleted, while the other credit disallowance and consequential interest and reduced penalty were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205931