https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349355 Procedural defects in ST-3 returns or invoice particulars cannot by themselves defeat a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 where substantive eligibility is otherwise shown. Non-reflection of credit in returns is a procedural lapse, and a revised return cannot be disregarded merely because the original return was incorrect. Where invoices and payment details require correlation, especially after a change of name, the factual verification must be done by the adjudicating authority. Refund cannot be denied solely because invoices were not addressed to the registered premises or were not issued in the appellant's name if the services were actually used and tax was paid. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:19:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349355 Procedural defects in ST-3 returns or invoice particulars cannot by themselves defeat a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 where substantive eligibility is otherwise shown. Non-reflection of credit in returns is a procedural lapse, and a revised return cannot be disregarded merely because the original return was incorrect. Where invoices and payment details require correlation, especially after a change of name, the factual verification must be done by the adjudicating authority. Refund cannot be denied solely because invoices were not addressed to the registered premises or were not issued in the appellant's name if the services were actually used and tax was paid. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349355