https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340639 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal challenging the denial of CENVAT credit. It ruled in favor of the appellant regarding duty paying documents, emphasizing that services essential for operations were eligible for credit despite name discrepancies. However, credit denial on invoices lacking crucial details was upheld. The Tribunal supported the appellant's claim for credit on specific input services, stressing the importance of service tax payments and service relevance. The judgment highlighted the necessity of proper documentation and the connection between services, tax payments, and credit eligibility. en-us Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:09:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340639 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal challenging the denial of CENVAT credit. It ruled in favor of the appellant regarding duty paying documents, emphasizing that services essential for operations were eligible for credit despite name discrepancies. However, credit denial on invoices lacking crucial details was upheld. The Tribunal supported the appellant's claim for credit on specific input services, stressing the importance of service tax payments and service relevance. The judgment highlighted the necessity of proper documentation and the connection between services, tax payments, and credit eligibility. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340639