https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757011 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit denial based on invoices addressed to Head Office instead of manufacturing unit. The Adjudicating Authority had initially dropped the demand, finding that despite invoices being raised in Head Office name (which later obtained ISD registration), there was no allegation that services weren't received at the plant or that service tax wasn't paid. CESTAT held that substantial benefit cannot be denied on technical grounds when there's no dispute about service tax payment, receipt, and utilization of services. The impugned order was set aside. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:31:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757011 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit denial based on invoices addressed to Head Office instead of manufacturing unit. The Adjudicating Authority had initially dropped the demand, finding that despite invoices being raised in Head Office name (which later obtained ISD registration), there was no allegation that services weren't received at the plant or that service tax wasn't paid. CESTAT held that substantial benefit cannot be denied on technical grounds when there's no dispute about service tax payment, receipt, and utilization of services. The impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757011