https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335513 Cenvat credit was treated as admissible where one unit of the same assessee used credit availed against invoices standing in another unit's name, because the job-work arrangement and nexus between the two units had been disclosed to the jurisdictional authority. The later requirement of Input Service Distributor registration, introduced in June 2005, could not defeat credit for the disputed period from June 2004 to February 2006. As no objection was raised to the substantive admissibility of the credit, the non-compliance was regarded as a procedural lapse insufficient to deny the benefit. en-us Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2016 08:18:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335513 Cenvat credit was treated as admissible where one unit of the same assessee used credit availed against invoices standing in another unit's name, because the job-work arrangement and nexus between the two units had been disclosed to the jurisdictional authority. The later requirement of Input Service Distributor registration, introduced in June 2005, could not defeat credit for the disputed period from June 2004 to February 2006. As no objection was raised to the substantive admissibility of the credit, the non-compliance was regarded as a procedural lapse insufficient to deny the benefit. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335513