https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359226 The tribunal found that the denial of cenvat credit to the appellant was unjustified. It held that the disputed services were essential for the broadcasting business and were used in providing output services. Despite the mention of an old registration number in some invoices, the tribunal noted that the services were indeed received and utilized for business operations. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the denial of cenvat credit, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. It emphasized that minor clerical errors should not hinder the rightful benefit of cenvat credit when services are genuinely utilized for business purposes. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359226 The tribunal found that the denial of cenvat credit to the appellant was unjustified. It held that the disputed services were essential for the broadcasting business and were used in providing output services. Despite the mention of an old registration number in some invoices, the tribunal noted that the services were indeed received and utilized for business operations. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the denial of cenvat credit, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. It emphasized that minor clerical errors should not hinder the rightful benefit of cenvat credit when services are genuinely utilized for business purposes. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359226