https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362100 CENVAT credit taken at the principal registered establishment was treated as admissible even though the input services were received at unregistered branch premises. The branches were found to be rendering services on behalf of the principal establishment, and there was no finding that the taxable output services were not provided or that the input services were not used for those services. In this setting, the absence of centralised registration was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive ground to deny credit, particularly where billing and service activity were carried on for the principal establishment. The denial of credit was therefore not justified. en-us Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:24:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362100 CENVAT credit taken at the principal registered establishment was treated as admissible even though the input services were received at unregistered branch premises. The branches were found to be rendering services on behalf of the principal establishment, and there was no finding that the taxable output services were not provided or that the input services were not used for those services. In this setting, the absence of centralised registration was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive ground to deny credit, particularly where billing and service activity were carried on for the principal establishment. The denial of credit was therefore not justified. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362100