https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793769 CENVAT credit was treated as unavailable where the inputs were not physically received in the factory and the supplier had not manufactured or cleared the goods. The analysis applied Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to hold that actual receipt of inputs is a mandatory condition for credit, and Rule 4(5) to place the burden of proving admissibility on the manufacturer. Credit claimed only through invoices, RG-23 records and book entries was found insufficient because the transactions were fictitious paper transactions. The precedent relied on for receipt disputes was distinguished on the basis that this matter involved non-manufacture and non-supply. The remand approach was rejected and the denial of credit, with consequential liability, was upheld. en-us Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jun 2026 07:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793769 CENVAT credit was treated as unavailable where the inputs were not physically received in the factory and the supplier had not manufactured or cleared the goods. The analysis applied Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to hold that actual receipt of inputs is a mandatory condition for credit, and Rule 4(5) to place the burden of proving admissibility on the manufacturer. Credit claimed only through invoices, RG-23 records and book entries was found insufficient because the transactions were fictitious paper transactions. The precedent relied on for receipt disputes was distinguished on the basis that this matter involved non-manufacture and non-supply. The remand approach was rejected and the denial of credit, with consequential liability, was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793769