Appeal granted for missing invoice info & excess credit denial. Deficiencies may be condoned.

The case involved the denial of cenvat credit for service tax due to missing information on invoices and excess credit availed. The appellant, though absent during the hearing, submitted written requests for consideration. The court found that certain deficiencies in invoices could be condoned under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verification, with the requirement for pre-deposit waived. The stay petition was granted, allowing the appellants an opportunity to present their case properly before the authority.

---

---

Issues:
Denial of cenvat credit for service tax paid on various services due to missing information on invoices, excess availment of credit, and absence of invoices.

Analysis:
The appellant was not present during the hearing, but written submissions were filed requesting consideration of the stay application based on the submissions. The learned AR was heard, and the written submissions along with the case record were considered. The denial of cenvat credit was based on various grounds, including missing service tax registration numbers on invoices and incorrect recipient information. Additionally, there were cases of excess credit availed and credit taken without invoices. The appellant submitted that excess amounts had been paid with interest and provided copies of missing invoices, assuring their production before the original adjudicating authority. The balance of cenvat credit was defended by stating that defects were rectified, making the credit valid.

The judge referred to Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, noting that the recipient's name and address were not mandatory requirements and could be condoned. The appellants committed to obtaining certificates from service providers and confirmed the receipt and utilization of input services. The judge emphasized the need to verify the two missing invoices and apply Rule 9 to determine if the omissions were condonable. It was decided to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority at this stage for verification. The requirement for pre-deposit of balance amounts was waived, the stay petition was granted, and the issue was to be reconsidered by the original adjudicating authority with a chance for the appellants to present their case adequately.

---