Procedural defects cannot defeat Rule 5 refund claims where substantive eligibility and service-use are established.

Procedural defects in ST-3 returns or invoice particulars cannot by themselves defeat a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 where substantive eligibility is otherwise shown. Non-reflection of credit in returns is a procedural lapse, and a revised return cannot be disregarded merely because the original return was incorrect. Where invoices and payment details require correlation, especially after a change of name, the factual verification must be done by the adjudicating authority. Refund cannot be denied solely because invoices were not addressed to the registered premises or were not issued in the appellant's name if the services were actually used and tax was paid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could be denied merely because the Cenvat credit was not reflected in the ST-3 returns. (ii) Whether the discrepancy between invoices and FIRC/payment details required further verification, particularly in view of the appellant's change of name. (iii) Whether refund could be denied on the ground that invoices were not addressed to the registered premises or were not issued in the appellant's name.

Issue (i): Whether refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could be denied merely because the Cenvat credit was not reflected in the ST-3 returns.

Analysis: Refund is to be examined on the basis of the relevant credit documents, the nature of the input service, its nexus with output service, and actual eligibility. Non-reflection or incorrect reflection of credit in ST-3 returns is a procedural lapse and does not, by itself, defeat a substantive refund claim. A revised return, where filed, cannot be ignored merely because the original return showed an incorrect position.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied solely on the basis that the credit was not shown in the ST-3 returns.

Issue (ii): Whether the discrepancy between invoices and FIRC/payment details required further verification, particularly in view of the appellant's change of name.

Analysis: The record indicated that the appellant had undergone a name change during the relevant period, and invoices issued in the former name could still relate to payments received in the new name. The correlation of invoices and receipts was therefore a factual matter needing examination at the adjudication stage.

Conclusion: The issue required fresh correlation and verification by the adjudicating authority.

Issue (iii): Whether refund could be denied on the ground that invoices were not addressed to the registered premises or were not issued in the appellant's name.

Analysis: Where the services were in fact used by the appellant and service tax had been paid on them, the mere defects in the address or name on invoices were not sufficient to defeat refund. Such defects were treated as curable, especially when registration had later been regularised.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied merely on these invoice-description defects.

Final Conclusion: The matter was required to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority for proper correlation of services, invoices, and payments, and refund would follow if the correlation was established.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural defects in return or invoice particulars cannot defeat a refund claim under Rule 5 where substantive eligibility exists, and disputed factual correlation must be verified on remand.

---