https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758139 CENVAT credit was held admissible on towers and their parts and accessories where concurrent factual findings showed the goods were excisable, duty had been paid, and the provider of output service was otherwise entitled to credit on capital goods, inputs, and input services. Credit could not be denied on procedural objections such as absence of Input Service Distributor registration, defects in supporting documents, or the fact that the towers were not installed within the assessee's premises, because those lapses did not defeat substantive eligibility. The dispute was treated as purely factual, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:28:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758139 CENVAT credit was held admissible on towers and their parts and accessories where concurrent factual findings showed the goods were excisable, duty had been paid, and the provider of output service was otherwise entitled to credit on capital goods, inputs, and input services. Credit could not be denied on procedural objections such as absence of Input Service Distributor registration, defects in supporting documents, or the fact that the towers were not installed within the assessee's premises, because those lapses did not defeat substantive eligibility. The dispute was treated as purely factual, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758139