https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777988 CESTAT Chandigarh-AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that clerical mismatches in invoice particulars (wrong unit name/registration) were rectifiable and did not justify denial of CENVAT credit where goods were received, used, and duly accounted for. The tribunal found bona fide certification and accountant verification of receipt and accounting of inputs, and that the proviso to Rule 9(2) permits credit where requisite duty, description, value and registration details are present. Invocation of extended limitation under Section 11(1A) was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:38:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777988 CESTAT Chandigarh-AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that clerical mismatches in invoice particulars (wrong unit name/registration) were rectifiable and did not justify denial of CENVAT credit where goods were received, used, and duly accounted for. The tribunal found bona fide certification and accountant verification of receipt and accounting of inputs, and that the proviso to Rule 9(2) permits credit where requisite duty, description, value and registration details are present. Invocation of extended limitation under Section 11(1A) was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777988