https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190580 Cenvat credit under Rule 7(1)(e)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was available only where documents were endorsed on their face in favour of the manufacturer for the full consignment. Invoices issued in the names of other persons, with different addresses, and supported only by a separate endorsement letter did not satisfy the prescribed mode of credit availing. The endorsement requirement was treated as a substantive safeguard, not a mere procedural formality. On that basis, the credit was held inadmissible and the appeal was rejected. en-us Wed, 11 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 19 Feb 2017 23:17:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190580 Cenvat credit under Rule 7(1)(e)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was available only where documents were endorsed on their face in favour of the manufacturer for the full consignment. Invoices issued in the names of other persons, with different addresses, and supported only by a separate endorsement letter did not satisfy the prescribed mode of credit availing. The endorsement requirement was treated as a substantive safeguard, not a mere procedural formality. On that basis, the credit was held inadmissible and the appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190580