https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294990 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the inputs were received from a second stage dealer and the invoices named another buyer while the appellant was shown as consignee. Where duty-paying invoices were issued and receipt of goods by the user manufacturer was established, such invoices remained valid for credit purposes, and a consignee-name mismatch did not by itself invalidate the documents. On that basis, the disallowance of credit, interest and penalty was held unsustainable, and the credit denial was set aside. en-us Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2024 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294990 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the inputs were received from a second stage dealer and the invoices named another buyer while the appellant was shown as consignee. Where duty-paying invoices were issued and receipt of goods by the user manufacturer was established, such invoices remained valid for credit purposes, and a consignee-name mismatch did not by itself invalidate the documents. On that basis, the disallowance of credit, interest and penalty was held unsustainable, and the credit denial was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294990