Cenvat Credit Documentation Defects Cannot Defeat Credit Where Service Tax Payment Is Otherwise Accepted

Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because invoices omit the service tax registration number, do not name the input service distributor, or show banking and financial service documents in the Chennai office's name. The Tribunal treated these as rectifiable clerical defects and held that, once tax payment by the service provider is accepted, such documentation lapses do not by themselves negate credit. It also applied the Board's clarification that banking and other financial service invoices need not state the service receiver's address, and similar relaxation applies to input service distributors. The credit denial was therefore unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the disputed credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on the ground that the invoices did not contain the service tax registration number or were not in the name of the input service distributor, and whether credit on banking and financial service invoices in the name of the Chennai office was admissible.

Analysis: The denial was founded on defects in the invoices, namely absence of service tax registration details and non-mention of the ISD name, apart from objection to HDFC Bank documents being in the name of the Chennai office. The Tribunal held that such omissions are only rectifiable defects and do not, by themselves, establish that service tax was not discharged by the service provider. It relied on the settled view that once tax payment by the service provider is accepted, clerical or documentary defects in the invoice cannot defeat credit. It also applied the Board's clarification that for banking and other financial services the invoice need not mention the address of the service receiver, and similar relaxation is available to input service distributors.

Conclusion: The credit denial was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the disputed Cenvat credit.

---