Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The respondent claimed refund of accumulated CENVAT credit, which was rejected for non-compliance with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 issued u/r 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The definition of 'input service' u/r 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 covers services used directly or indirectly in manufacturing and clearance of final products. Each input service involved was held eligible for CENVAT credit based on various decisions. Refund eligibility cannot be questioned in refund proceedings as per the HCL Comnet case. Invoices addressed to the corporate office instead of manufacturing premises was a technical lapse, and substantive benefits cannot be denied for procedural irregularities. The CESTAT upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.