https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340901 CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because a dealer's invoice describes inputs differently from the manufacturer's delivery challan, where the invoices satisfy Rule 9 requirements and the assessee has actually received, accounted for, and used the goods in manufacture. The mismatch in description or dimensions was treated as a dealer-side irregularity, possibly arising from handling or simple processing of the goods, and not as proof that the assessee took credit without receipt or use. In the absence of evidence rebutting receipt and consumption of the inputs, the credit remained admissible to the assessee. en-us Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:11:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340901 CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because a dealer's invoice describes inputs differently from the manufacturer's delivery challan, where the invoices satisfy Rule 9 requirements and the assessee has actually received, accounted for, and used the goods in manufacture. The mismatch in description or dimensions was treated as a dealer-side irregularity, possibly arising from handling or simple processing of the goods, and not as proof that the assessee took credit without receipt or use. In the absence of evidence rebutting receipt and consumption of the inputs, the credit remained admissible to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340901