https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265608 The Tribunal upheld its original decision, clarifying that there was no contradiction in allowing CENVAT credit and remanding for verification of input services' actual use. They emphasized that certificates from service providers, although lacking specific details, were submitted earlier and should not be a basis for denial. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's ROM application, reaffirming the necessity of verifying service utilization for CENVAT credit claims and dismissing the appeal. en-us Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265608 The Tribunal upheld its original decision, clarifying that there was no contradiction in allowing CENVAT credit and remanding for verification of input services' actual use. They emphasized that certificates from service providers, although lacking specific details, were submitted earlier and should not be a basis for denial. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's ROM application, reaffirming the necessity of verifying service utilization for CENVAT credit claims and dismissing the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265608