https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33119 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding them eligible for CENVAT credit on capital goods received during the disputed period of 2004-05 and 2005-06, setting aside the impugned order that denied the credit due to lack of invoices from a registered first stage dealer. The Tribunal emphasized that substantive benefits cannot be denied on procedural grounds if substantive conditions are met, noting that the CSD in Madurai, though not fitting the definition of a first stage dealer, was eligible for registration post-September 2005, indicating a procedural shift. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33119 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding them eligible for CENVAT credit on capital goods received during the disputed period of 2004-05 and 2005-06, setting aside the impugned order that denied the credit due to lack of invoices from a registered first stage dealer. The Tribunal emphasized that substantive benefits cannot be denied on procedural grounds if substantive conditions are met, noting that the CSD in Madurai, though not fitting the definition of a first stage dealer, was eligible for registration post-September 2005, indicating a procedural shift. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33119