https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357046 Credit reversal under the third proviso to rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not justified where the dispute arose from a debit note for courier charges linked to returned goods. The proviso applies only when payment for an input service is refunded or a credit note is received by the person who had taken credit on that service. Here, the courier service was rendered to the vendor, the assessee was not the recipient of that service, and there was no evidence that it had availed credit on the tax paid. In the absence of proof of ineligible credit, the demand for reversal failed and was set aside. en-us Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Mar 2019 15:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357046 Credit reversal under the third proviso to rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not justified where the dispute arose from a debit note for courier charges linked to returned goods. The proviso applies only when payment for an input service is refunded or a credit note is received by the person who had taken credit on that service. Here, the courier service was rendered to the vendor, the assessee was not the recipient of that service, and there was no evidence that it had availed credit on the tax paid. In the absence of proof of ineligible credit, the demand for reversal failed and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357046