https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349545 In the first case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit for services received from outside India. The Tribunal held that Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, pertaining to inputs/capital goods, did not apply to services under the reverse charge mechanism. Consequently, the appellant's availing of credit for services was deemed appropriate. In the second case, the Tribunal upheld the denial of Cenvat Credit for the admitted period due to discrepancies but remanded the matter for further examination post cross-examination for remaining demands, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in adjudication processes. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349545 In the first case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit for services received from outside India. The Tribunal held that Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, pertaining to inputs/capital goods, did not apply to services under the reverse charge mechanism. Consequently, the appellant's availing of credit for services was deemed appropriate. In the second case, the Tribunal upheld the denial of Cenvat Credit for the admitted period due to discrepancies but remanded the matter for further examination post cross-examination for remaining demands, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in adjudication processes. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349545