https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764003 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding denial of CENVAT credit on supplementary invoices issued beyond 14 days of service completion. The tribunal held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied to service recipients based on procedural irregularities in invoice timing by service providers. Following precedents from Usha Martin Limited and Madras HC in JSW Steels, the tribunal ruled that for periods prior to 01.04.2011, Rule 9(1)(f) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 includes supplementary invoices within the term "invoice." Since duty was paid on supplementary invoices and input services were genuinely received and used for manufacturing dutiable goods, procedural delays cannot justify credit denial. en-us Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jan 2025 19:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764003 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding denial of CENVAT credit on supplementary invoices issued beyond 14 days of service completion. The tribunal held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied to service recipients based on procedural irregularities in invoice timing by service providers. Following precedents from Usha Martin Limited and Madras HC in JSW Steels, the tribunal ruled that for periods prior to 01.04.2011, Rule 9(1)(f) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 includes supplementary invoices within the term "invoice." Since duty was paid on supplementary invoices and input services were genuinely received and used for manufacturing dutiable goods, procedural delays cannot justify credit denial. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764003