Cenvat credit cannot be denied for curable invoice defects when services were received and tax was paid.

Cenvat credit cannot be denied where the services were actually received and service tax was paid, merely because the invoices contained procedural defects. Absence of registration details, mismatch of address between head office and branch, issuance of invoices before registration, and non-compliance with the input service distributor mechanism were treated as curable lapses. Where the same legal entity received and used the services in business, such technical irregularities did not defeat substantive entitlement to credit. Denial of credit on these grounds alone was therefore not sustainable, and the assessee remained entitled to the credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied for invoices containing procedural defects such as absence of registration details, mismatch of address, issuance prior to registration, and non-compliance with the input service distributor mechanism, when receipt of the services and payment of service tax were not in dispute.

Analysis: The services were actually received by the assessee and the service tax charged on the invoices had been paid by the service provider. The objections raised by the department related only to procedural irregularities in the invoices and billing particulars. Such defects were held to be curable and condonable where the substantive entitlement to credit is otherwise established. Non-registration as an input service distributor was treated as a procedural lapse, and the mismatch between the head office and branch address did not justify denial because the same legal entity had received and used the services in the course of business. The denial of credit merely on technical grounds was therefore not sustainable.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit could not be denied on the basis of the procedural defects noticed by the department, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

---