CENVAT credit cannot be denied for invoice-name mismatch when services were received and tax was paid by the provider.

CENVAT credit could not be denied merely because the invoices were issued in the head office's name instead of the factory address, where the services were actually received in the appellant's unit and the service provider had discharged service tax. The invoicing discrepancy was treated as a rectifiable error, and the Tribunal followed its earlier view in DNH Spinners. The denial of credit by the lower authorities was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied merely because the invoices were issued in the name of the head office instead of the factory address, when the services were received in the appellant's unit and the service tax had been paid by the service provider.

Analysis: The invoices related to services rendered through the CHA for export of goods. The discrepancy in the invoicing name was treated as a rectifiable error. There was no dispute regarding receipt of the services in the appellant's unit or discharge of service tax by the service provider. In these circumstances, the earlier decision of the Tribunal in DNH Spinners was followed.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit could not be denied on this ground, and the denial by the lower authorities was unsustainable.

---