Cenvat credit cannot be denied for missing ISD registration alone when records show receipt and use of the service.

Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services cannot be denied merely because the unit that paid the tax was not registered as an Input Service Distributor at the relevant time, where records show that the service was received and used by the eligible unit. The absence of ISD registration is only a procedural lapse and does not, by itself, defeat credit when the underlying transaction and credit claim can be verified from the records. On that basis, denial of credit was held unsustainable and the assessee was treated as entitled to the Cenvat credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services could be denied merely because the unit which paid the tax was not registered as an Input Service Distributor at the relevant time.

Analysis: The service tax on GTA services was admittedly paid on services received and used by the appellant's Bhachau Steel Unit. The only objection was that the Khambhalia Coke Unit, which paid the tax, was not registered as an Input Service Distributor when the credit was taken. The governing principle applied was that absence of ISD registration, by itself, does not automatically disentitle credit where the records establish receipt and use of the service and the lapse is only procedural. Reliance was placed on the view that such an irregularity is curable and does not justify denial of the entire credit when the revenue can verify the underlying facts.

Conclusion: The denial of credit was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to the Cenvat credit.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural lapse in ISD registration does not by itself bar Cenvat credit when the service has been received and used for the eligible unit and the relevant records establish the correctness of the claim.

---