https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393053 The appellant was denied Cenvat credit due to the factory address not being reflected in the invoices. However, as the appellant had properly recorded the credit in their registers and the invoices were issued in the name of the head office, the court ruled in favor of the appellant. The denial of credit based on a procedural lapse was deemed unjust, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The judgment emphasizes that substantive benefits should not be withheld from taxpayers for minor procedural errors when all essential requirements are fulfilled. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Mar 2020 10:30:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393053 The appellant was denied Cenvat credit due to the factory address not being reflected in the invoices. However, as the appellant had properly recorded the credit in their registers and the invoices were issued in the name of the head office, the court ruled in favor of the appellant. The denial of credit based on a procedural lapse was deemed unjust, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The judgment emphasizes that substantive benefits should not be withheld from taxpayers for minor procedural errors when all essential requirements are fulfilled. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393053