https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781477 Substantive Cenvat credit was recognised where construction services were genuinely received for the claimant's facility, payment was made by the claimant, and the invoice name discrepancy was only a technical error; the credit was allowed because there was no evidence of double availment or disruption of the tax chain. Credit on workstations was denied because they were treated as furniture under CETH 9403 and did not qualify as specified capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Penalties were also set aside because the workstation credit issue arose from a mistaken understanding of entitlement. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781477 Substantive Cenvat credit was recognised where construction services were genuinely received for the claimant's facility, payment was made by the claimant, and the invoice name discrepancy was only a technical error; the credit was allowed because there was no evidence of double availment or disruption of the tax chain. Credit on workstations was denied because they were treated as furniture under CETH 9403 and did not qualify as specified capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Penalties were also set aside because the workstation credit issue arose from a mistaken understanding of entitlement. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781477