Cenvat credit on invoices in a different office name was not denied where services were admittedly received.

Cenvat credit could not be denied at the prima facie stage merely because invoices were issued in the name of the Mumbai office, where the services were admittedly received for the business of the appellant. The production activity was carried on in Mumbai, while the Gurgaon office functioned only as the administrative and registered office. On this footing, the tribunal found no sufficient basis to refuse credit and granted waiver of pre-deposit. Recovery of the disputed credit demand, interest and penalty was stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the disputed Cenvat credit on the ground that the invoices stood in the name of its Mumbai office though the services were admittedly received.

Analysis: The appellant's production activity was carried on in Mumbai, while the Gurgaon office was only the administrative and registered office. The disputed invoices related to services actually received for the appellant's business, and there was no dispute about receipt of those services. On this prima facie view, the mere fact that the invoices were issued in the name of the Mumbai office was not a sufficient ground to deny Cenvat credit.

Conclusion: The requirement of pre-deposit of the Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty was waived and recovery was stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

---