https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383885 CENVAT credit was treated as admissible where invoices were issued in the head office name but the input services were actually received and used by the unit, because the defect was only procedural and could not defeat substantive entitlement. Credit was also allowed on items used for cladding, repair and maintenance of manufacturing equipment and pipes, as they were integrally connected with the manufacturing process. Interest and penalty were held not leviable where the credit had been availed but not utilised and the disputed amount had been reversed, reflecting that no recoverable demand survived on those facts. en-us Mon, 29 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383885 CENVAT credit was treated as admissible where invoices were issued in the head office name but the input services were actually received and used by the unit, because the defect was only procedural and could not defeat substantive entitlement. Credit was also allowed on items used for cladding, repair and maintenance of manufacturing equipment and pipes, as they were integrally connected with the manufacturing process. Interest and penalty were held not leviable where the credit had been availed but not utilised and the disputed amount had been reversed, reflecting that no recoverable demand survived on those facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383885