https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783703 CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because invoices name a division or office instead of the registered factory where the receipt and use of duty-paid inputs or input services are undisputed. The consignee-name mismatch is treated as a procedural irregularity, and substantive compliance prevails when the department does not dispute receipt, utilisation, or duty-paid character. The text also reflects reliance on the doctrine of substantial compliance and a Board circular discouraging action for purely technical infirmities. On that basis, denial of credit on the incorrect address objection was not sustainable, and the demand, interest, and penalty were set aside. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 07:49:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783703 CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because invoices name a division or office instead of the registered factory where the receipt and use of duty-paid inputs or input services are undisputed. The consignee-name mismatch is treated as a procedural irregularity, and substantive compliance prevails when the department does not dispute receipt, utilisation, or duty-paid character. The text also reflects reliance on the doctrine of substantial compliance and a Board circular discouraging action for purely technical infirmities. On that basis, denial of credit on the incorrect address objection was not sustainable, and the demand, interest, and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783703