https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430323 CENVAT credit was not denied where supporting invoices were photocopies and the head office issued only a distribution statement, because no evidence showed double availment and the relevant particulars were available for verification. The absence of Input Service Distributor registration at the time of distribution was also treated as a procedural lapse, since service tax had been paid on the input services and no excess or duplicate credit was established. The operative principle is that substantive credit cannot be refused for documentation or registration defects when eligible input-service credit and its proper distribution are otherwise proved. en-us Tue, 15 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2022 09:11:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430323 CENVAT credit was not denied where supporting invoices were photocopies and the head office issued only a distribution statement, because no evidence showed double availment and the relevant particulars were available for verification. The absence of Input Service Distributor registration at the time of distribution was also treated as a procedural lapse, since service tax had been paid on the input services and no excess or duplicate credit was established. The operative principle is that substantive credit cannot be refused for documentation or registration defects when eligible input-service credit and its proper distribution are otherwise proved. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430323