https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391729 The Tribunal held that denial of Cenvat Credit based solely on invoicing discrepancy was unjustified. The appellant fulfilled all requirements under Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, including payment of service tax, despite invoices being in the importer's name. Procedural lapses should not bar legitimate credit claims, and the Department's contention of non-payment was incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the denial, emphasizing compliance with Rule 9(2) and upholding the intent of the rules in granting Cenvat Credit to the appellant. en-us Tue, 24 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Feb 2020 16:39:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391729 The Tribunal held that denial of Cenvat Credit based solely on invoicing discrepancy was unjustified. The appellant fulfilled all requirements under Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, including payment of service tax, despite invoices being in the importer's name. Procedural lapses should not bar legitimate credit claims, and the Department's contention of non-payment was incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the denial, emphasizing compliance with Rule 9(2) and upholding the intent of the rules in granting Cenvat Credit to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391729