Cenvat credit cannot be denied for procedural non-registration when input services support manufacture and records show the nexus.

Cenvat credit on input services could not be denied merely because it was not routed through input service distributor registration where records showed the services were used in relation to manufacture of dutiable final products and in job-work operations. The tribunal treated the non-registration as a procedural lapse, and held that a substantive credit benefit cannot be refused when the factual nexus and supporting records are available. On limitation and penalty, prior audits and departmental scrutiny showed awareness of the unit structure and service use, so suppression of facts or wilful misstatement was not established. The extended period and penalty were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit on input services could be denied merely because the credit was not distributed through input service distributor registration and the services were used in the course of job work and manufacturing activities. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were invocable on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit on input services could be denied merely because the credit was not distributed through input service distributor registration and the services were used in the course of job work and manufacturing activities.

Analysis: Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 governs distribution of input service credit, but non-registration as an input service distributor was treated as a procedural lapse where the records were maintained and the services were used in relation to manufacture of dutiable final products. The services were found to have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of cables, and the unit structure and job-work arrangement did not dislodge the availability of credit. The decision also relied on the principle that substantial credit benefit cannot be denied for a procedural irregularity when the factual nexus and records are available for verification.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was not justified and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were invocable on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The record showed earlier audits and prior scrutiny of the same activity, and the Department was aware of the unit structure and the nature of the services. In these circumstances, the elements of suppression of facts and wilful misstatement were not established. Once the substantive demand failed and the alleged irregularity was held to be procedural, the basis for penalty on the company's officer also did not survive.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and penalty was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The demand was unsustainable on merits and on limitation, so the assessee succeeded in resisting the proposed recovery and connected penalty action.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-registration as an input service distributor, by itself, does not disentitle an assessee to Cenvat credit when the credit is otherwise supported by records and the services are used in relation to manufacture of dutiable final products; limitation and penalty cannot be sustained absent suppression or wilful misstatement.

---