https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268765 An invoice omission of the service provider's registration number was treated as a mandatory defect under the Cenvat Credit Rules, and not as an omission that could be condoned under Rule 9(2); on that basis, Cenvat credit was denied and the related service tax demand with interest was sustained. Penalty, however, was found unnecessary because the mistake lay with the service provider rather than the assessee, and the defect itself was not committed by the assessee. The substantive credit reversal therefore remained in place, but relief from penalty was granted. en-us Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Dec 2015 01:33:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268765 An invoice omission of the service provider's registration number was treated as a mandatory defect under the Cenvat Credit Rules, and not as an omission that could be condoned under Rule 9(2); on that basis, Cenvat credit was denied and the related service tax demand with interest was sustained. Penalty, however, was found unnecessary because the mistake lay with the service provider rather than the assessee, and the defect itself was not committed by the assessee. The substantive credit reversal therefore remained in place, but relief from penalty was granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268765