Cenvat credit cannot be denied for missing invoice registration details when service receipt and substantive eligibility are undisputed.

Cenvat credit of service tax cannot be denied solely because the input service distributor was unregistered and the registration number was omitted from invoices. Where receipt of the services is undisputed and the omission is only a procedural lapse in invoice particulars, the requirement in the proviso to Rule 9(2) cannot defeat substantive credit entitlement. The document states that the lapse arose during implementation of the input service distributor mechanism and did not affect the underlying eligibility to credit, so the credit was allowed to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit of service tax could be denied merely because the input service distributor had not obtained registration and, for that reason, the registration number was not shown on the invoices.

Analysis: The disputed credit was denied only on the ground of absence of registration particulars on the invoices. The services received by the assessee were not in dispute, and the omission was explained as arising from the stage at which the input service distributor mechanism was being implemented. The procedural requirement under the proviso to Rule 9(2) could not be used to defeat credit where the lapse was explained and did not affect the substantive entitlement.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was not justified; the credit was rightly allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural omission in compliance with invoice formalities, by itself, cannot deny Cenvat credit when receipt of the service is undisputed and the substantive conditions for credit are otherwise satisfied.

---