Appeal Granted: CENVAT Credit Upheld Despite Typo (2)

The appeal challenged the disallowance of CENVAT credit by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)-II based on a recipient name discrepancy. Despite the typographical error in the name on the input service bills, evidence showed the services were received and accounted for by the appellant. Relying on Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, which allows credit if goods/services are received and accounted for, the Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal. M/s. Shivraj Cable Network was granted the CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices, as all necessary particulars were present, and services were received and paid for.

---

---

Issues:
- Disallowance of CENVAT credit on input service bills due to typographical error in the recipient's name.
- Appellant's contention of receiving services and making payments despite the error.
- Interpretation of Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 regarding allowance of credit.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the rejection of CENVAT credit by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)-II, Mumbai, based on the disallowance of credit and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority on M/s. Shivraj Cable Network for availing credit on input service bills issued in the name of M/s. Hemraj Cable Network.

2. The appellant contended that the error in the recipient's name on the bills was a typographical mistake by the service provider, M/s. Zee Turner Ltd., and provided evidence to support their claim. They submitted documents, including a letter requesting correction, distributor certification, invoices, bank statements, ledger copies, and an affidavit by the appellant-firm's partner confirming receipt of services and payment made.

3. The appellant relied on legal precedents and Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 to argue that despite the name error, since the services were received and accounted for by the appellant, CENVAT credit should not have been denied. The rule allows credit if goods or services covered in the documents have been received and accounted for in the receiver's books, even if all particulars are not mentioned.

4. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, maintained the findings of the impugned order disallowing the credit based on the recipient name discrepancy.

5. Upon reviewing all submissions, the Member (Judicial) found that the invoices were indeed meant for M/s. Shivraj Cable Network despite the name error, as evidenced by distributor certification, payment records, and other documents. The correct customer code was consistently mentioned, and the partner's affidavit further confirmed the transactions.

6. Referring to the proviso of Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, the Member concluded that since all necessary particulars were present except the recipient's name, and the services were received, accounted for, and paid for by the appellant, the appellant was legally entitled to the CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices.

7. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of M/s. Shivraj Cable Network, establishing their entitlement to the CENVAT credit on the input service bills despite the typographical error in the recipient's name.

---