https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370796 The appeal was allowed by the Member (Judicial) based on the binding ratio decidendi of the jurisdictional High Court and relevant precedents. The appellant's argument regarding non-registration as an Input Service Distributor (ISD) not justifying denial of substantive benefits was accepted. The decision clarified registration requirements for claiming CENVAT Credit benefits, emphasizing adherence to legal provisions and precedents. Other arguments on the extended period of limitation were not addressed as the appeal was allowed on its merits. en-us Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Nov 2018 07:23:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370796 The appeal was allowed by the Member (Judicial) based on the binding ratio decidendi of the jurisdictional High Court and relevant precedents. The appellant's argument regarding non-registration as an Input Service Distributor (ISD) not justifying denial of substantive benefits was accepted. The decision clarified registration requirements for claiming CENVAT Credit benefits, emphasizing adherence to legal provisions and precedents. Other arguments on the extended period of limitation were not addressed as the appeal was allowed on its merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370796