https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357677 The tribunal ruled that the appellants were ineligible for re-credit of duty and refund of interest due to non-compliance with procedural provisions under specific notifications. The failure to fulfill these conditions was deemed substantive rather than procedural, leading to the denial of benefits. Compliance with procedural provisions under Notification No. 44/2001-CE(NT) was crucial, as benefits could not be extended without adherence to prescribed procedures. The admissibility of CENVAT credit on sales commission was acknowledged by the appellant, while the availing of credit on a triplicate copy of the invoice was deemed valid. The tribunal upheld the admissibility of credit on input services despite opposition from the Revenue. en-us Mon, 26 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:58:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357677 The tribunal ruled that the appellants were ineligible for re-credit of duty and refund of interest due to non-compliance with procedural provisions under specific notifications. The failure to fulfill these conditions was deemed substantive rather than procedural, leading to the denial of benefits. Compliance with procedural provisions under Notification No. 44/2001-CE(NT) was crucial, as benefits could not be extended without adherence to prescribed procedures. The admissibility of CENVAT credit on sales commission was acknowledged by the appellant, while the availing of credit on a triplicate copy of the invoice was deemed valid. The tribunal upheld the admissibility of credit on input services despite opposition from the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357677