Cenvat credit allowed for courier services and invoice defects where goods were received, used in manufacture, and duty was paid.

Courier services used to despatch documents and samples were treated as input services because they supported business promotion and activities connected with manufacture and clearance, so Cenvat credit was admissible. Credit was also upheld where an invoice stood in the name of a distributor, because the goods were received in the factory, used in manufacture, and duty had been paid; minor invoice defects were not enough to deny credit when the substantive conditions were satisfied. The appeal therefore succeeded on both grounds, with consequential relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether courier services used for despatch of documents and samples qualified as input services for Cenvat credit under the relevant definition. (ii) Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on an invoice issued in the name of a distributor where the goods were received in the assessee's factory and used in manufacture.

Issue (i): Whether courier services used for despatch of documents and samples qualified as input services for Cenvat credit under the relevant definition.

Analysis: The definition of input service covered services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and clearance of final products, as well as services relating to business. Sending samples and documents was treated as a business-related activity that supported sales and promotion. The courier activity was therefore not treated as a mere post-removal transportation service for another buyer, but as a service used in relation to the assessee's business and clearance activities. The Tribunal also noted its earlier decision supporting credit on courier services.

Conclusion: The credit on courier services was admissible and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on an invoice issued in the name of a distributor where the goods were received in the assessee's factory and used in manufacture.

Analysis: The record showed a discrepancy in the amount and invoice particulars, and the objection had not been properly dealt with in the adjudication order. The crucial facts remained that the goods were received in the factory, used in manufacture, and duty had been paid. In such circumstances, minor procedural defects in invoice particulars were not sufficient to deny credit, particularly when no dispute existed about receipt and use of the goods.

Conclusion: The credit could not be denied on this ground and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on both counts and the assessee was held entitled to Cenvat credit with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Services used for business promotion and for activities integrally connected with manufacture and clearance can qualify as input services, and Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely for procedural defects in invoicing where receipt of goods, duty payment, and their use in the factory are established.

---