CENVAT credit remains admissible despite unregistered branch premises where services support the principal establishment and registration lapse is procedural.

CENVAT credit taken at the principal registered establishment was treated as admissible even though the input services were received at unregistered branch premises. The branches were found to be rendering services on behalf of the principal establishment, and there was no finding that the taxable output services were not provided or that the input services were not used for those services. In this setting, the absence of centralised registration was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive ground to deny credit, particularly where billing and service activity were carried on for the principal establishment. The denial of credit was therefore not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit taken at the principal registered establishment was admissible when the input services were received at unregistered branch premises, and whether absence of centralised registration justified denial of credit.

Analysis: The branches were found to be rendering services on behalf of the principal establishment, and there was no contrary finding that the taxable services were not being provided or that the input services were not used in the output service. The order also did not record any objection to the availment of credit itself. In these circumstances, the failure to obtain centralised registration was treated as a procedural matter and not a substantive ground to deny the credit, especially where billing and service provision were being carried on for the principal establishment.

Conclusion: The credit was held admissible and the denial thereof was not justified.

---