Cenvat credit on input services cannot be denied for invoice defects when tax payment, receipt, and use are undisputed.

Cenvat credit on input services cannot be denied merely because invoices are issued in the name of the head office or omit some prescribed particulars, where payment of service tax, receipt of the services, and their use are undisputed. Procedural defects in invoicing do not defeat credit when the substantive conditions for availment are satisfied. The position is different from the physical receipt requirement applicable to inputs, and credit may be taken in the factory by a manufacturer even where the head office receives the invoices and follows the relevant procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on input services can be denied merely because the invoices were in the name of the head office or did not contain all particulars prescribed under the service tax rules.

Analysis: There was no dispute regarding payment of service tax, receipt of input services, or their use by the respondent. The objection was confined to the documentation, namely that some invoices were in the name of the head office and some did not contain complete particulars. Such documentary deficiency, by itself, was held insufficient to deny credit when the substantive conditions for availment were satisfied. The Tribunal also noted that credit on input services is not dependent on the same physical receipt requirement applicable to inputs, and that credit may be availed in the factory by a manufacturer where the head office receives the invoices and complies with the relevant procedure.

Conclusion: The objection based on non-compliance with the invoicing procedure did not justify denial of credit. The department's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit on input services cannot be denied solely for procedural defects in invoices when service tax payment, receipt of input services, and their use are not in dispute.

---