https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464059 CESTAT MUMBAI - AT allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority. It held that certificates issued by NPCI are not prescribed documents under Rule 9(1) CCR, and that the crucial issue is verification of actual payment of service tax. The tribunal noted admissions that NPCI did not raise invoices and may not have paid service tax; accordingly the respondent must establish payment (including ST-3 returns or other documentary proof). The adjudicator must objectively reassess evidence and record satisfaction before allowing CENVAT credit. en-us Thu, 23 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Sep 2025 20:02:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464059 CESTAT MUMBAI - AT allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority. It held that certificates issued by NPCI are not prescribed documents under Rule 9(1) CCR, and that the crucial issue is verification of actual payment of service tax. The tribunal noted admissions that NPCI did not raise invoices and may not have paid service tax; accordingly the respondent must establish payment (including ST-3 returns or other documentary proof). The adjudicator must objectively reassess evidence and record satisfaction before allowing CENVAT credit. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 23 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464059