https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369740 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Original denying Cenvat credit. It held that denial based solely on procedural lapses was not legally sustainable, emphasizing substantive benefit over procedural deficiencies. The appellant rectified the challans, complying with requirements, and the show cause notice did not specify other deficiencies. Relying on a Gujarat High Court ruling, the Tribunal concluded in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of rectifying procedural errors to uphold entitlement to Cenvat credit. en-us Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Nov 2018 13:41:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369740 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Original denying Cenvat credit. It held that denial based solely on procedural lapses was not legally sustainable, emphasizing substantive benefit over procedural deficiencies. The appellant rectified the challans, complying with requirements, and the show cause notice did not specify other deficiencies. Relying on a Gujarat High Court ruling, the Tribunal concluded in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of rectifying procedural errors to uphold entitlement to Cenvat credit. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369740