Cenvat credit cannot be denied for invoice name mismatch when service receipt and tax payment are undisputed.

Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because service invoices were issued in the name of the head office rather than the unit claiming the credit. Where receipt of services, payment of service tax, and use of the services were undisputed, the invoicing irregularity was only a procedural lapse and did not defeat substantive entitlement. On that basis, denial of credit was held unjustified and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the service invoices were issued in the name of the head office instead of the unit that took the credit.

Analysis: There was no dispute regarding receipt of the services, payment of service tax, or utilisation of the services. The objection was confined to the invoices being in the name of the head office and not the appellant unit. Such a procedural lapse, in the absence of any dispute on the underlying entitlement, could not defeat the substantive credit claim.

Conclusion: Denial of Cenvat credit on this ground was not justified and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---