https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350880 CENVAT credit on service tax could not be denied merely because the service provider paid the full tax amount under an arrangement where liability was otherwise to be shared under reverse charge. Entitlement to credit depended on payment of service tax, reflection in the invoice, and use of the input service in or in relation to manufacture. The apportionment of liability under Notification No. 30/2012-ST did not control the recipient's credit claim, and the amount paid by the provider could not be treated as a mere deposit when substantive credit conditions were satisfied. Credit was therefore available to the recipient. en-us Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 12:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350880 CENVAT credit on service tax could not be denied merely because the service provider paid the full tax amount under an arrangement where liability was otherwise to be shared under reverse charge. Entitlement to credit depended on payment of service tax, reflection in the invoice, and use of the input service in or in relation to manufacture. The apportionment of liability under Notification No. 30/2012-ST did not control the recipient's credit claim, and the amount paid by the provider could not be treated as a mere deposit when substantive credit conditions were satisfied. Credit was therefore available to the recipient. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350880