CENVAT input service credit cannot be denied for a mere invoice-name defect when service receipt is undisputed.

CENVAT input service credit could not be denied merely because the invoice described the assessee's Panvel office rather than the factory, where receipt of the service was undisputed and the service was not used in a disqualifying manner. The invoice defect was treated as a procedural irregularity, and it did not defeat substantive entitlement to credit. On that basis, the denial of credit based only on the invoice description was unsustainable, and the assessee was found entitled to the input service credit with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit on input services could be denied merely because the invoice stood in the name of the assessee's Panvel office instead of the factory, when receipt of the input service was undisputed.

Analysis: The receipt of the input service was not in dispute and it was also undisputed that the service had not been utilised by the assessee in a manner disentitling it to credit. The defect in the invoice name was treated as a procedural issue, and the substantive entitlement to input service credit could not be defeated on that ground. The reasoning was supported by the view that where the service is received by the assessee, a technical defect in documentation does not justify denial of credit.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the input service credit, and the denial based on the invoice description was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive entitlement to CENVAT input service credit cannot be denied solely for a procedural defect in the invoice, when receipt of the service by the assessee is undisputed.

---