Cenvat credit on head office invoices remains available when service receipt and use are undisputed.

Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the service invoices were issued in the name of the head office or registered office. Where receipt and utilisation of the services in the factory were undisputed, prior decisions and the Board's circular supported allowing credit on such invoices. The operative principle is that invoice nomenclature alone is not a valid ground to reject credit when the substantive entitlement and actual use of input services are established.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit of service tax could be denied merely because the invoices were issued in the name of the appellant's head office.

Analysis: The availability of credit was held to be no longer res integra. It was noted that earlier decisions had accepted credit where invoices stood in the name of the head office or registered office, so long as receipt and utilisation of services were not in dispute. The Board's Circular No. 211/45/96-CX dated 14-5-1996 was also relied upon to the effect that credit would not be denied on this ground alone. As the receipt of services in the factory and the entitlement to credit were undisputed, the invoices could not be treated as invalid for denying credit.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was unjustified and the assessee was entitled to the credit despite the invoices being in the name of the head office.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied solely because the invoice is in the name of the head office or registered office when receipt and utilisation of the services are undisputed.

---