Cenvat credit on input services allowed where receipt and accounting were verified despite invoices in head office name.

Cenvat credit on input services cannot be denied merely because invoices are issued in the name of the head office or because the head office is not registered as an Input Service Distributor. The Tribunal applied Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and treated verifiable receipt of the services and proper accounting as the controlling test, rather than invoice form alone. It also rejected the Revenue's attempt to distinguish input services from goods on this point. Credit was therefore admissible and the departmental appeal failed, with the lower appellate relief to the assessee sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit of service tax was admissible where invoices stood in the name of the head office and the head office was not registered as an Input Service Distributor.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its earlier decision on similar facts, where credit on input services was allowed despite the absence of Input Service Distributor registration. It further held that Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits credit on the basis of defective documents if the services are received and accounted for, and that the relevant test is verification of receipt of the input services, not the mere form of the invoices. The Revenue's attempt to distinguish services from goods was rejected as unsustainable.

Conclusion: Credit was held admissible and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order of the lower appellate authority granting relief to the assessee was sustained, and the departmental challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because the invoice is issued in the name of the head office or because the head office is not registered as an Input Service Distributor, if the receipt of input services and their accounting are otherwise verifiable under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

---