https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338833 CENVAT credit could not be denied where the goods were shown as duty paid and the objections related only to procedural defects in documentation. A mismatch between the importer named in the Bill of Entry and the branch office issuing the invoices was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive defect, and the allegation that invoices were issued before port clearance was found insubstantial. Since the authority was required to verify duty-paid nature and sufficiency of particulars before proceeding on procedural grounds, denial of credit was unjustified and the assessee was entitled to the credit. en-us Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 16:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338833 CENVAT credit could not be denied where the goods were shown as duty paid and the objections related only to procedural defects in documentation. A mismatch between the importer named in the Bill of Entry and the branch office issuing the invoices was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive defect, and the allegation that invoices were issued before port clearance was found insubstantial. Since the authority was required to verify duty-paid nature and sufficiency of particulars before proceeding on procedural grounds, denial of credit was unjustified and the assessee was entitled to the credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338833