https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774082 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant was not entitled to CENVAT credit on invoices lacking essential details prescribed under Rule 9(2) proviso - specifically service tax registration and service tax paid amount. Court ruled that invoices without these mandatory details cannot be considered valid duty paying documents, regardless of whether service provider actually had registration or paid tax through separate challans. However, CESTAT found extended period of limitation and penalty under section 78 were not sustainable as discrepancies were discovered during audit from appellant's own records without evidence of fraud or willful suppression. Appeal partly allowed; demand for extended period and penalty set aside, matter remanded for re-computation of service tax and interest. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:34:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774082 CESTAT New Delhi held that appellant was not entitled to CENVAT credit on invoices lacking essential details prescribed under Rule 9(2) proviso - specifically service tax registration and service tax paid amount. Court ruled that invoices without these mandatory details cannot be considered valid duty paying documents, regardless of whether service provider actually had registration or paid tax through separate challans. However, CESTAT found extended period of limitation and penalty under section 78 were not sustainable as discrepancies were discovered during audit from appellant's own records without evidence of fraud or willful suppression. Appeal partly allowed; demand for extended period and penalty set aside, matter remanded for re-computation of service tax and interest. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774082