https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791821 Cenvat credit on disputed input services was treated as eligible where the same services had earlier been accepted and the department could not re-open the nexus objection on the same factual basis. The Tribunal also applied the principle that a mismatch between ITC statements and ST-3 returns, by itself, does not justify denial of credit when invoices and records support the claim. Procedural defects in documentation were not enough to defeat substantive credit, although the excess credit already reversed remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 21 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791821 Cenvat credit on disputed input services was treated as eligible where the same services had earlier been accepted and the department could not re-open the nexus objection on the same factual basis. The Tribunal also applied the principle that a mismatch between ITC statements and ST-3 returns, by itself, does not justify denial of credit when invoices and records support the claim. Procedural defects in documentation were not enough to defeat substantive credit, although the excess credit already reversed remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 21 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791821