https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220896 The court allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. The judge found that the denial of Cenvat credit based on the discrepancy in the invoice name was not justified, especially when there was no dispute regarding the service receipt by the factory. The judge emphasized that credit should not be disallowed solely due to the invoice being in the name of the registered office, particularly when the service was indeed received by the factory. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and both the stay application and the appeal were disposed of in favor of the appellant. en-us Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 06:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220896 The court allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. The judge found that the denial of Cenvat credit based on the discrepancy in the invoice name was not justified, especially when there was no dispute regarding the service receipt by the factory. The judge emphasized that credit should not be disallowed solely due to the invoice being in the name of the registered office, particularly when the service was indeed received by the factory. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and both the stay application and the appeal were disposed of in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220896