https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788615 A clerical discrepancy in the consignee name and a revised invoice did not justify denial of Cenvat credit where contemporaneous records, including the purchase order, supplier invoice details, payment proof, transporter documents, inward entries, stock records, and duty-paid clearance evidence, consistently showed receipt of the inputs and their accounting in the recipient's factory. The record established that the transaction particulars, value, and duty remained unchanged, and the Revenue failed to rebut the corroborative evidence. Credit was therefore admissible, and denial of Cenvat credit was not justified. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:05:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788615 A clerical discrepancy in the consignee name and a revised invoice did not justify denial of Cenvat credit where contemporaneous records, including the purchase order, supplier invoice details, payment proof, transporter documents, inward entries, stock records, and duty-paid clearance evidence, consistently showed receipt of the inputs and their accounting in the recipient's factory. The record established that the transaction particulars, value, and duty remained unchanged, and the Revenue failed to rebut the corroborative evidence. Credit was therefore admissible, and denial of Cenvat credit was not justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788615