https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214368 Cenvat credit on capital goods could not be denied where the bill of entry was in the name of another unit of the same assessee, so long as the goods were actually received and the essential particulars were available. A purely technical objection to the document did not defeat substantive entitlement, and the alleged mismatch in description and quantity could not sustain denial when it was not the basis of the show cause notice. The explanation for the weight variation was treated as reasonable, with no verification showing that the goods received were different from the imported goods. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 02 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214368 Cenvat credit on capital goods could not be denied where the bill of entry was in the name of another unit of the same assessee, so long as the goods were actually received and the essential particulars were available. A purely technical objection to the document did not defeat substantive entitlement, and the alleged mismatch in description and quantity could not sustain denial when it was not the basis of the show cause notice. The explanation for the weight variation was treated as reasonable, with no verification showing that the goods received were different from the imported goods. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214368