https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371607 The Tribunal held that the denial of Cenvat Credit based on the omitted explanation was incorrect, and the demand was set aside. However, the credit availed based on invoices in the name of a different entity was deemed inadmissible, and the demand on this issue was maintained. The Tribunal upheld the demand for Cenvat credit prior to 01/01/2005 due to a discrepancy identified during an audit, directing the adjudicating authority to quantify the eligible credit. The appeal was partly allowed, addressing the issues comprehensively. en-us Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Dec 2018 06:52:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371607 The Tribunal held that the denial of Cenvat Credit based on the omitted explanation was incorrect, and the demand was set aside. However, the credit availed based on invoices in the name of a different entity was deemed inadmissible, and the demand on this issue was maintained. The Tribunal upheld the demand for Cenvat credit prior to 01/01/2005 due to a discrepancy identified during an audit, directing the adjudicating authority to quantify the eligible credit. The appeal was partly allowed, addressing the issues comprehensively. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371607