https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381748 The appeal was partly allowed as the Member (Judicial) remanded the matter for fresh adjudication regarding the appellant's availing of CENVAT Credit without being registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD). The decision was influenced by subsequent legal developments and decisions indicating that non-registration as an ISD was a procedural irregularity that did not warrant denial of the credit if necessary records were maintained. Despite the remand, no penalty was imposed, aligning with the Board's acceptance of the issue. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381748 The appeal was partly allowed as the Member (Judicial) remanded the matter for fresh adjudication regarding the appellant's availing of CENVAT Credit without being registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD). The decision was influenced by subsequent legal developments and decisions indicating that non-registration as an ISD was a procedural irregularity that did not warrant denial of the credit if necessary records were maintained. Despite the remand, no penalty was imposed, aligning with the Board's acceptance of the issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381748