Cenvat credit for genuine services survives invoice error, but workstations treated as furniture were not eligible capital goods.

Substantive Cenvat credit was recognised where construction services were genuinely received for the claimant's facility, payment was made by the claimant, and the invoice name discrepancy was only a technical error; the credit was allowed because there was no evidence of double availment or disruption of the tax chain. Credit on workstations was denied because they were treated as furniture under CETH 9403 and did not qualify as specified capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Penalties were also set aside because the workstation credit issue arose from a mistaken understanding of entitlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Cenvat credit was admissible on the final invoice for construction services where the invoice was addressed to the appellant's architect but the services were rendered for the appellant and payment was made by the appellant; (ii) whether Cenvat credit was admissible on workstations supplied as furniture and whether penalties survived.

Issue (i): whether Cenvat credit was admissible on the final invoice for construction services where the invoice was addressed to the appellant's architect but the services were rendered for the appellant and payment was made by the appellant.

Analysis: The invoice, the surrounding records, and the subsequent confirmations showed that the services were rendered for the appellant's facility and that the invoice was issued in the name of the architect only by inadvertence. The earlier related bills had been accepted, the final bill pertained to the same project, and there was no concrete evidence that the credit had been availed by any other person. A mere technical or venial defect in the invoice description was treated as insufficient to deny substantive credit where the transaction was genuine and the tax chain was not shown to be disturbed.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on the construction-service invoice was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether Cenvat credit was admissible on workstations supplied as furniture and whether penalties survived.

Analysis: The workstations were treated as furniture falling under CETH 9403 and not as specified capital goods within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On that basis, the denial of credit was upheld. At the same time, because the assessee had already succeeded on the other credit item and the workstation credit had been taken under a mistaken understanding of entitlement, the penalties were found unsustainable.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on the workstations was disallowed, but the penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The order was modified by granting credit on the invoice-related construction services, maintaining the denial of credit on the workstation item, and deleting the penalties, leaving the appeal successful only to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive Cenvat credit cannot be denied for a merely technical invoice error where the transaction is genuine, the services are established as received by the claimant, and there is no evidence of double availment or misuse; however, credit on goods not falling within the statutory definition of capital goods is not admissible.

---