https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266549 CENVAT credit cannot be denied for a minor documentation defect where the inputs are shown to be duty paid, actually received, and used in manufacture. The fact that the bill of entry stood in the name of an entity whose dealer registration had been surrendered was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a substantive bar, because the credit documents were invoices issued by a registered dealer and the genuineness of the transaction was not in doubt. Credit was therefore rightly allowed, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266549 CENVAT credit cannot be denied for a minor documentation defect where the inputs are shown to be duty paid, actually received, and used in manufacture. The fact that the bill of entry stood in the name of an entity whose dealer registration had been surrendered was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a substantive bar, because the credit documents were invoices issued by a registered dealer and the genuineness of the transaction was not in doubt. Credit was therefore rightly allowed, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266549