https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259336 The appeal challenged the disallowance of CENVAT credit by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)-II based on a recipient name discrepancy. Despite the typographical error in the name on the input service bills, evidence showed the services were received and accounted for by the appellant. Relying on Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, which allows credit if goods/services are received and accounted for, the Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal. M/s. Shivraj Cable Network was granted the CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices, as all necessary particulars were present, and services were received and paid for. en-us Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259336 The appeal challenged the disallowance of CENVAT credit by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)-II based on a recipient name discrepancy. Despite the typographical error in the name on the input service bills, evidence showed the services were received and accounted for by the appellant. Relying on Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, which allows credit if goods/services are received and accounted for, the Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal. M/s. Shivraj Cable Network was granted the CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices, as all necessary particulars were present, and services were received and paid for. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259336