Cenvat credit allowed for steel fabrication inputs, clerical invoice defects, and GTA services despite missing transporter registration details.

Cenvat credit was treated as admissible on MS Angles, MS Beams and similar steel items used inside the factory to fabricate support structures needed for installation and functioning of plant and machinery. A clerical invoice error showing the head office address instead of the factory address was held insufficient to defeat credit where receipt and use were not disputed. Credit on GTA services was also allowed because the transporter was not required to mention a service tax registration number on the invoice, and reverse charge liability rested with the recipient. On these principles, the confirmed demand, interest and penalties were found unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on MS Angles, MS Beams and other steel items used within the factory for fabrication of support structures and completion of the project; (ii) Whether credit was deniable merely because one invoice mentioned the head office address instead of the factory address; (iii) Whether Cenvat credit on GTA services could be denied for want of transporter service tax registration number in the invoice.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on MS Angles, MS Beams and other steel items used within the factory for fabrication of support structures and completion of the project.

Analysis: The steel items were ed by the Chartered Engineer as having been used within the factory premises for fabrication and completion of the EPC project. The credit was sought to be denied on the premise that such items were not eligible inputs. The settled view applied by the Tribunal was that steel items used for fabrication of support structures for capital goods, and which are necessary for installation and functioning of plant and machinery, qualify for credit.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and the credit on the MS items was held admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether credit was deniable merely because one invoice mentioned the head office address instead of the factory address.

Analysis: The invoice discrepancy was treated as a clerical mistake. The record showed no dispute regarding receipt and use of the service by the appellant. A mere misdescription of the address, without disputing entitlement or use, was held insufficient to defeat credit.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and the credit on the amount covered by the mistaken invoice address was allowed.

Issue (iii): Whether Cenvat credit on GTA services could be denied for want of transporter service tax registration number in the invoice.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that a transporter providing GTA services was not required to indicate a service tax registration number in the invoice, and that service tax under GTA was payable by the recipient under reverse charge. Therefore, absence of such registration details could not be a ground to deny credit.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and the credit on GTA services was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied where steel items are used for fabrication of support structures necessary for plant and machinery, nor where an invoice defect is merely clerical, nor where GTA credit is sought to be denied only because the transporter's invoice does not mention a service tax registration number.

---