CENVAT credit on GTA invoices cannot be denied solely for missing registration details under substantial compliance principles.

CENVAT credit on GTA services could not be denied merely because the invoice or supplementary invoice omitted the service provider's registration number or related particulars. Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 supports credit where the document substantially identifies the provider and evidences tax payment, so strict insistence on registration details was incorrect. Credit also depended on whether the services were actually received, used in or in relation to manufacture, and whether service tax had in fact been paid. As these factual aspects were not fully examined, the matter required fresh reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals).

---

---

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on GTA service invoices/supplementary invoices for omission of the service provider's registration number and related particulars, and whether Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 permits credit on substantial compliance.

Analysis: The controversy concerned credit of service tax paid on GTA services where some invoices were supported by supplementary invoices and some did not mention the service provider's registration number. Rule 9(2) was material because it provides that credit shall not be denied merely because a document lacks all particulars if it contains the essential details of duty or tax payment and identification of the service provider. The appellate authority had not properly examined this provision, and the observation that registration number was mandatory was found to be incorrect. The matter also required verification whether the services were actually received and used in or in relation to manufacture and whether service tax had in fact been paid. Since these aspects were not fully examined below, the dispute required reconsideration.

Conclusion: Denial of credit could not rest solely on absence of the registration number or the form of supplementary invoice, and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh by the Commissioner (Appeals).

---