https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754234 C&F Agent service was treated as input service for Cenvat credit where the C&F Agent premises functioned as the place of removal, so the service was held to fall within Rule 2(l) both before and after the 11.07.2014 amendment. Credit could not be denied merely because the service was said to be used beyond the place of removal. On the documentation issue, a discrepancy in a debit note did not by itself defeat credit claimed on ISD invoices, but the ISD invoices required verification because the earlier denial proceeded on an unverified assumption. The matter was therefore returned for limited reconsideration on that factual verification. en-us Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jun 2024 08:35:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754234 C&F Agent service was treated as input service for Cenvat credit where the C&F Agent premises functioned as the place of removal, so the service was held to fall within Rule 2(l) both before and after the 11.07.2014 amendment. Credit could not be denied merely because the service was said to be used beyond the place of removal. On the documentation issue, a discrepancy in a debit note did not by itself defeat credit claimed on ISD invoices, but the ISD invoices required verification because the earlier denial proceeded on an unverified assumption. The matter was therefore returned for limited reconsideration on that factual verification. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754234