Cenvat credit cannot be denied for technical invoice defects when receipt, tax payment, and use are undisputed; extended limitation fails.

Cenvat credit on input services and related items could not be denied for mere invoice or documentation defects where receipt, tax payment, and use were undisputed; such defects were treated as technical and insufficient to defeat substantive entitlement, so the credit was allowed. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the credit was already reflected in records, investigation had commenced earlier, and no material showed suppression, wilful misstatement, or similar conduct; accordingly, the demand was held time-barred. The assessee's appeal was allowed and the revenue's appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit on input services and related items could be denied on hyper-technical or procedural defects in invoices and allied documents when receipt, tax payment, and use were not disputed; (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified for the demand raised after investigation had commenced.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit on input services and related items could be denied on hyper-technical or procedural defects in invoices and allied documents when receipt, tax payment, and use were not disputed?

Analysis: The disputed credits were found to relate to services and inputs already recognised in precedent as eligible for credit. The record contained no allegation or finding that the services were not received, not tax paid, or not used in the manufacture of final products or in business activity. In that situation, defects such as non-compliance with invoice particulars, use of photocopies, or mention of another unit's address were treated as merely technical and insufficient to defeat substantive credit.

Conclusion: Denial of credit on procedural or hyper-technical grounds was not justified and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified for the demand raised after investigation had commenced?

Analysis: The credit had been reflected in statutory records, investigation began in November 2007, and the show cause notice was issued only on 24.06.2011 for the period June 2006 to March 2007. No explanation was offered for the prolonged delay after the start of investigation. In the absence of material showing suppression or similar conduct, the extended period was held to be unavailable.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the assessee's appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely for technical or documentary defects when receipt, tax payment, and use of the input service are not disputed, and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked absent justification such as suppression or wilful misstatement.

---