Court allows appeal on Cenvat credit denial due to invoice discrepancy

The court allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. The judge found that the denial of Cenvat credit based on the discrepancy in the invoice name was not justified, especially when there was no dispute regarding the service receipt by the factory. The judge emphasized that credit should not be disallowed solely due to the invoice being in the name of the registered office, particularly when the service was indeed received by the factory. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and both the stay application and the appeal were disposed of in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Cenvat credit denial based on invoice name discrepancy.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the denial of Cenvat credit of service tax paid to a factory due to the invoice issued by the service provider being in the name of the registered office and not the factory. The Revenue contended that the registered office should have registered as an input service distributor and issued separate invoices for the factory to avail the credit. Both sides were heard in detail, and the pre-deposit requirement was waived to decide the issue finally.

The appellant argued that as they only had one factory, the question of distribution did not arise. They emphasized that the department did not dispute the receipt of services. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support their stance that credit cannot be disallowed solely based on the invoice not containing the factory's name, especially when there is no dispute regarding the service receipt by the factory. On the contrary, the Revenue relied on other Tribunal decisions to argue that registration of an input service distributor is mandatory for credit admissibility.

After considering the submissions and records, the judge found that the decisions cited by the Revenue were not applicable to the present case. The judge noted that the dispute was not about the validity of the document issued by the distributor but rather about whether the appellant's registered office needed to be registered when they had only one factory and had taken credit based on service provider invoices. There was no indication that the factory did not receive the service. The judge concluded that the decisions cited by the appellant were directly relevant to the case, emphasizing that credit should not be denied solely because the invoice was in the name of the registered office, especially when the service was received by the factory. Consequently, the judge allowed the appeal, disposing of the stay application and the appeal itself.

---