Cenvat credit between related units remains admissible when substantive entitlement exists despite procedural registration lapse.

Cenvat credit was treated as admissible where one unit of the same assessee used credit availed against invoices standing in another unit's name, because the job-work arrangement and nexus between the two units had been disclosed to the jurisdictional authority. The later requirement of Input Service Distributor registration, introduced in June 2005, could not defeat credit for the disputed period from June 2004 to February 2006. As no objection was raised to the substantive admissibility of the credit, the non-compliance was regarded as a procedural lapse insufficient to deny the benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit taken by one unit could be utilised by another unit of the same assessee despite the invoices standing in the name of the other unit and absence of Input Service Distributor registration.

Analysis: The assessee had informed the jurisdictional authority about the job-work arrangement and the nexus between Unit-I and Unit-II was admitted. The requirement of Input Service Distributor registration came into force only in June 2005, whereas the period in dispute covered June 2004 to February 2006. No allegation was made that the credit itself was not admissible; the dispute was confined to non-compliance with the later procedural requirement. In such circumstances, the procedural lapse could not be used to deny credit where the substantive entitlement was otherwise established.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was held admissible to the assessee.

---