However you may note that there is the Shakta commentator Sri Abhinavagupta who says,

 Even those who worship [gods] with other names, they too [in fact] worship Me alone, becaue there is nothing (no god) to be worshipped apart from the Brahman. But the difference is that [they do so] by non-injunction.

Non-injunction : different injunctions. [This amounts to saying that] having the innate nature of the Absolute Brahman-Existence, I am indeed worshipped by manifold injunctions (i.e., sacrifices enjoined by injunctions). But non-injunction should not be explained as ‘by defective injunction’ as it has been done by others (other commentators), who acquire dirts of great sins by insulting other systems of philosophy.

If their view is correct then the declarations that are actually found viz., ‘They offer sacrifice to Me alone’, and ‘I am alone the enjoyer of all sacrifices’ – all would be inconsistent. Enough of talk with the sinful ones. 

Then the commentary proceeds to explain it. Maybe you may like this. As noted by this Bhashyakara, all the other Bhashyakaras have explained it as other systems being wrong.

Jai Sita Rama