https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769276 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal regarding wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit. The appellant initially could not produce documents during SCN proceedings but later submitted all relevant documents including bills of entry and invoices. The original authority was satisfied with the documentation and dropped proceedings, allowing the credit. However, the impugned order denied credit solely because bills of entry were in the head office's name rather than appellant's name. The Tribunal held that substantial benefit cannot be denied on procedural infirmities when substantive conditions are satisfied, citing precedent. The appellant provided CA certificate confirming head office had not availed credit on the same imports. The denial based solely on invoice naming was unjustified. en-us Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:09:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769276 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal regarding wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit. The appellant initially could not produce documents during SCN proceedings but later submitted all relevant documents including bills of entry and invoices. The original authority was satisfied with the documentation and dropped proceedings, allowing the credit. However, the impugned order denied credit solely because bills of entry were in the head office's name rather than appellant's name. The Tribunal held that substantial benefit cannot be denied on procedural infirmities when substantive conditions are satisfied, citing precedent. The appellant provided CA certificate confirming head office had not availed credit on the same imports. The denial based solely on invoice naming was unjustified. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769276