https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330738 Cenvat credit was treated as admissible on assembly canopy, refractory and similar inputs used in manufacture because those items had a direct nexus with the manufacturing process. Credit could not be denied merely for defects in duty-paying documents or minor discrepancies in description where the identity of the inputs was otherwise established. The text also states that credit on inputs sent to a job worker and received back could be re-availed when the procedure under Rule 57F(4), Rule 57F(6) and Rule 57F(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was followed. The overall legal position is that substantive entitlement to credit prevails over technical lapses when statutory conditions are met. en-us Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Aug 2016 17:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330738 Cenvat credit was treated as admissible on assembly canopy, refractory and similar inputs used in manufacture because those items had a direct nexus with the manufacturing process. Credit could not be denied merely for defects in duty-paying documents or minor discrepancies in description where the identity of the inputs was otherwise established. The text also states that credit on inputs sent to a job worker and received back could be re-availed when the procedure under Rule 57F(4), Rule 57F(6) and Rule 57F(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was followed. The overall legal position is that substantive entitlement to credit prevails over technical lapses when statutory conditions are met. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330738