CENVAT credit and invoice particulars: registered address mismatch alone does not justify denial where services were received.

CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because an invoice shows the recipient's unregistered premises address instead of its registered address, so long as the service was received, accounted for, and the invoice otherwise contains the particulars required by the CENVAT Credit Rules and Service Tax Rules. Credit disputes based on invoices bearing the erstwhile name after merger were not disturbed in writ proceedings and were left to be tested in the statutory appeal. A similar approach was taken for invoices relating to the period before separate service tax registration, which was treated as a live issue requiring adjudication and did not justify waiver of the statutory pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether CENVAT credit could be denied merely because the invoices mentioned the unregistered premises address of the recipient instead of its registered address; (ii) whether credit could be disallowed because the invoices reflected the erstwhile name of the assessee after merger; and (iii) whether credit could be denied for the period when the assessee was not separately registered with the service tax department.

Issue (i): whether CENVAT credit could be denied merely because the invoices mentioned the unregistered premises address of the recipient instead of its registered address.

Analysis: Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 require the invoice to contain the name and address of the recipient and the relevant particulars of the service provider and taxable service. The governing rules do not insist that the recipient's registered address must be shown as a condition for availment of credit. Where the services were received and accounted for and the invoice otherwise satisfied the material requirements, denial of credit on the ground of mismatch between the invoice address and the registered address was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The objection was untenable and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether credit could be disallowed because the invoices reflected the erstwhile name of the assessee after merger.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the assessee, as the successor entity after merger, could be denied credit solely because invoices bore the pre-merger name of the erstwhile company. This was not accepted as a basis for upholding relief in the writ proceedings, since the Court declined to interfere on the merits of this limb and left the matter to be tested in the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The assessee did not succeed on this issue.

Issue (iii): whether credit could be denied for the period when the assessee was not separately registered with the service tax department.

Analysis: Registration was treated as a legal requirement under the service tax framework, and the invoices pertaining to the period before registration were not accepted as sufficient to secure waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. The Court held that this aspect raised a live dispute requiring adjudication in the appeal and did not justify dispensing with the statutory pre-deposit on this limb.

Conclusion: The assessee did not succeed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted only in relation to the credit dispute concerning invoices bearing the unregistered premises address, while the remaining credit disputes were left to be pursued in the statutory appeal with the prescribed pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: For CENVAT credit, the invoice must contain the material particulars required by the relevant rules, but credit cannot be denied merely because the recipient's registered address is not mentioned where the service has been received and accounted for.

---