CENVAT credit remains available for input services used in manufacture; procedural invoice defects cannot defeat substantive entitlement.

CENVAT credit on insurance, works contract and manpower supply services is allowable where the services are actually used in manufacture or in repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, because such use qualifies as input service under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Credit for insurance-related survey services was supported by breakup and documents, so it could not be disallowed for lack of explanation. Works contract services used for repair and maintenance, not for construction of a building or civil structure, were outside the exclusion. Procedural defects in invoices under rule 9(2) do not justify denial of credit when receipt and substantive use of the service are established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit of Rs. 20,49,675 disallowed on insurance services, works contract services and manpower supply services was inadmissible under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. (ii) Whether the CENVAT credit of Rs. 67,50,989 allowed on manpower supply services could be denied on the ground of procedural defects in the invoices under rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit of Rs. 20,49,675 disallowed on insurance services, works contract services and manpower supply services was inadmissible under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The disputed insurance credit related to survey services and the appellant had furnished the relevant breakup and supporting material, so the finding that no explanation or documents were produced was incorrect. The works contract credit was for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, not for construction of a building or civil structure, and therefore did not fall within the exclusion in rule 2(l). The manpower supply credit was used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery during shutdown and was integral to manufacture, making it an input service.

Conclusion: The disallowance of CENVAT credit of Rs. 20,49,675 was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the CENVAT credit of Rs. 67,50,989 allowed on manpower supply services could be denied on the ground of procedural defects in the invoices under rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The services were actually received and used in the manufacturing operations, and the substantive requirements for availing credit were satisfied. A mere procedural deficiency in the invoices did not justify denial of credit where eligibility of the input service was not in dispute.

Conclusion: The allowance of CENVAT credit of Rs. 67,50,989 was upheld and the department's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in setting aside the disallowance of credit, while the department's appeal against the allowance of credit was rejected, leaving the assessee with full relief on the disputed credit demands.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit cannot be denied where the service is substantively an input service used in manufacture, and procedural defects in documentation do not defeat entitlement when receipt and use of the service are established.

---