https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326381 The appeal was dismissed as the Appellant had availed Cenvat Credit for services at branch offices without proper registration as an Input Service Distributor, contravening clear provisions requiring registration. The judgment emphasized the necessity of adhering to specific provisions governing input service distributors over general provisions, highlighting the importance of proper registration and invoicing for service tax credit distribution. The Appellant's argument against the extended period was rejected due to lack of disclosure to the department. The decision aligned with CESTAT Ahmedabad precedent, underscoring the significance of compliance with registration requirements for input service distributors. en-us Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326381 The appeal was dismissed as the Appellant had availed Cenvat Credit for services at branch offices without proper registration as an Input Service Distributor, contravening clear provisions requiring registration. The judgment emphasized the necessity of adhering to specific provisions governing input service distributors over general provisions, highlighting the importance of proper registration and invoicing for service tax credit distribution. The Appellant's argument against the extended period was rejected due to lack of disclosure to the department. The decision aligned with CESTAT Ahmedabad precedent, underscoring the significance of compliance with registration requirements for input service distributors. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326381