CENVAT credit cannot be denied for procedural invoice defects, but clearing and forwarding credit is limited to the place of removal.

CENVAT credit on manpower services, BIS fees and tangible goods services was allowed because the invoice defect for tangible goods services was treated as a procedural lapse, and the absence of service tax registration particulars was not a valid ground to deny credit where no statutory bar required them as a condition precedent. By contrast, credit on clearing and forwarding services was confined to the place of removal, namely the factory gate, and was not admissible beyond that point. The dispute was therefore resolved by allowing the substantive credit claims while restricting the input service credit for clearing and forwarding services to the legally recognised removal point.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether denial of CENVAT credit on manpower services, BIS fees and tangible goods services was sustainable. (ii) Whether CENVAT credit on clearing and forwarding services was admissible beyond the place of removal.

Issue (i): Whether denial of CENVAT credit on manpower services, BIS fees and tangible goods services was sustainable.

Analysis: The disputed credits were examined against the department's own subsequent acceptance of similar credits in the assessee's case for a later period. The invoice objection relating to tangible goods services was treated as a procedural lapse, and the absence of service tax registration particulars in the invoice was not regarded as a ground to deny credit where no statutory bar required such registration as a condition precedent.

Conclusion: The denial of CENVAT credit on manpower services, BIS fees and tangible goods services was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether CENVAT credit on clearing and forwarding services was admissible beyond the place of removal.

Analysis: Credit on clearing and forwarding services was held allowable only up to the place of removal, namely the factory gate, in line with the governing legal position on the scope of input service credit.

Conclusion: The denial of credit beyond the factory gate was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with relief granted on the disputed credits except to the extent the claim extended beyond the place of removal.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit cannot be denied for a mere procedural defect where the substantive entitlement exists, but credit on clearing and forwarding services is confined to the place of removal.

---