https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368929 CENVAT credit on manpower services, BIS fees and tangible goods services was allowed because the invoice defect for tangible goods services was treated as a procedural lapse, and the absence of service tax registration particulars was not a valid ground to deny credit where no statutory bar required them as a condition precedent. By contrast, credit on clearing and forwarding services was confined to the place of removal, namely the factory gate, and was not admissible beyond that point. The dispute was therefore resolved by allowing the substantive credit claims while restricting the input service credit for clearing and forwarding services to the legally recognised removal point. en-us Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368929 CENVAT credit on manpower services, BIS fees and tangible goods services was allowed because the invoice defect for tangible goods services was treated as a procedural lapse, and the absence of service tax registration particulars was not a valid ground to deny credit where no statutory bar required them as a condition precedent. By contrast, credit on clearing and forwarding services was confined to the place of removal, namely the factory gate, and was not admissible beyond that point. The dispute was therefore resolved by allowing the substantive credit claims while restricting the input service credit for clearing and forwarding services to the legally recognised removal point. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368929