https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226176 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices carried hand-written serial numbers rather than printed serial numbers under Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The rule requires invoices to be serially numbered, but it does not insist on printed numbering, unlike the earlier Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the inputs were duty-paid, received for manufacture, and supported by supplier and departmental verification, the substantive entitlement to credit was established. The procedural defect was therefore insufficient to invalidate the invoices or justify denial of credit. en-us Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226176 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices carried hand-written serial numbers rather than printed serial numbers under Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The rule requires invoices to be serially numbered, but it does not insist on printed numbering, unlike the earlier Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the inputs were duty-paid, received for manufacture, and supported by supplier and departmental verification, the substantive entitlement to credit was established. The procedural defect was therefore insufficient to invalidate the invoices or justify denial of credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226176