Cenvat credit allowed despite revised return differences and invoice defects where input services were actually received.

Cenvat credit could not be denied where the assessee had actually received the input services and revised statutory returns reflected the corrected billing arrangement. The Tribunal treated the revised ST-3 returns and supporting ledger entries as operative records, and rejected the inference that credit was invalid merely because they differed from the original returns. It also held that discrepancies in the service provider's name or address on invoices were curable when the provider's identity was otherwise ascertainable and tax payment, receipt of services, and substantive credit conditions were not in dispute. The denial of credit and consequential service tax demand were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the revised ST-3 returns and corresponding ledger entries differed from the original returns, when the services were actually received and the credit was reflected in the revised records; (ii) whether Cenvat credit could be denied because of discrepancies in the name or address of the service provider shown on the invoices, when receipt of services and payment of tax were not in dispute.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the revised ST-3 returns and corresponding ledger entries differed from the original returns, when the services were actually received and the credit was reflected in the revised records.

Analysis: The revised returns were treated as the operative records for the relevant period. The dispute arose from the Department's reliance on original returns and its inference of back-dated entries. The Tribunal found that the appellant had received the intermediary services and had appropriately revised the returns to reflect the corrected billing arrangement. Since the credit was supported by the revised statutory filings and the underlying services were not shown to be absent, denial of credit on the basis of the earlier returns was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Cenvat credit could not be denied on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether Cenvat credit could be denied because of discrepancies in the name or address of the service provider shown on the invoices, when receipt of services and payment of tax were not in dispute.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated the discrepancy in the name or address on the invoices as a curable defect where the identity of the service provider was otherwise ascertainable and the actual receipt of services was established. It also noted that the service tax liability had been discharged and the substantive eligibility conditions for credit were satisfied. The invoice irregularities did not outweigh the factual receipt of input services.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Cenvat credit could not be denied on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit and the consequential service tax demand were set aside, and the appellant obtained full relief in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied where the substantive requirement of receipt of input services is satisfied, and mere discrepancies in revised returns or invoice particulars do not defeat credit in the absence of any finding that the services were not received.

---