https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756447 CESTAT Chennai held that the jurisdictional officer where the recipient assessee is registered, not where the Input Service Distributor (ISD) is registered, has responsibility to verify CENVAT credit eligibility. The burden of proof for credit admissibility lies with the manufacturer/service provider taking such credit per Rule 9(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The court found the impugned order failed to provide detailed reasons for denying credit on expat cost services, merely stating revenue received no reply from appellant was insufficient. Given the broad scope of "input service" definition prior to 01/04/2011 amendments and absence of required 1:1 correlation between input and final product, the demand for duty, interest and penalty could not be sustained. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Aug 2024 08:08:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756447 CESTAT Chennai held that the jurisdictional officer where the recipient assessee is registered, not where the Input Service Distributor (ISD) is registered, has responsibility to verify CENVAT credit eligibility. The burden of proof for credit admissibility lies with the manufacturer/service provider taking such credit per Rule 9(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The court found the impugned order failed to provide detailed reasons for denying credit on expat cost services, merely stating revenue received no reply from appellant was insufficient. Given the broad scope of "input service" definition prior to 01/04/2011 amendments and absence of required 1:1 correlation between input and final product, the demand for duty, interest and penalty could not be sustained. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756447