https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366430 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoice serial numbers were handwritten rather than printed where service tax payment by the providers was undisputed and the invoices themselves were not challenged. Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the corresponding invoice requirements under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 did not make printed serial numbers a substantive condition for credit eligibility. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions treating handwritten serial numbers as a curable or technical defect, not a disqualification. The credit disallowance was therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Sep 2018 07:43:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366430 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because invoice serial numbers were handwritten rather than printed where service tax payment by the providers was undisputed and the invoices themselves were not challenged. Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the corresponding invoice requirements under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 did not make printed serial numbers a substantive condition for credit eligibility. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions treating handwritten serial numbers as a curable or technical defect, not a disqualification. The credit disallowance was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366430