https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356912 The Tribunal held that the appellant was not the recipient of the C&F services but arranged them on behalf of the buyer. The billing process did not establish the appellant as the service recipient, leading to the denial of Cenvat credit. Judgments cited by the appellant did not support their claim as charges were absorbed in the final product's value. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the department's decision that the buyer was the actual recipient of the services. en-us Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356912 The Tribunal held that the appellant was not the recipient of the C&F services but arranged them on behalf of the buyer. The billing process did not establish the appellant as the service recipient, leading to the denial of Cenvat credit. Judgments cited by the appellant did not support their claim as charges were absorbed in the final product's value. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the department's decision that the buyer was the actual recipient of the services. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356912