CENVAT credit cannot be denied for procedural ISD defects when invoices, records, and service use are otherwise established.

CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because the Head Office lacked Input Service Distributor registration or issued documents not strictly in the prescribed ISD format, where the original invoices and records are available and the services were received and used. Procedural non-compliance with ISD requirements is treated as a procedural lapse, not a ground to defeat substantive credit, when entitlement is otherwise established and the credit pertains to a single unit. On that basis, the credit was held admissible despite the registration and documentation defects.

---

---

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied merely because the Head Office had not obtained Input Service Distributor registration or had not issued documents in the prescribed ISD form, when the underlying invoices and records were otherwise available and the services had been received and utilized.

Analysis: The credit was disallowed solely on the ground that the ISD procedure was not followed by the Head Office and that the documents issued prior to registration did not strictly conform to the prescribed format. The record, however, showed that the appellant had produced the original documents, there was no dispute that the services were received and utilized, and the credit related to a single unit. The decision relied on the principle that non-registration or delayed registration as an ISD is only a procedural lapse and that substantive credit cannot be denied where the necessary records are maintained and the entitlement is otherwise established.

Conclusion: The CENVAT credit was admissible and could not be denied on the ground of procedural non-compliance with ISD requirements.

---