https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796722 CENVAT credit cannot be denied solely because the recipient address on input-service invoices differs from the address in its ST-2 registration certificate where the invoices otherwise contain the particulars required under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. An address retained in the service provider's accounting system is a technical discrepancy and does not, by itself, determine substantive credit eligibility. Denial without considering the assessee's explanation, objections, and entitlement on merits is unsustainable. The credit denial and consequential demand, interest, and penalty were set aside, with fresh adjudication required after notice and hearing. en-us Fri, 07 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Aug 2026 08:37:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796722 CENVAT credit cannot be denied solely because the recipient address on input-service invoices differs from the address in its ST-2 registration certificate where the invoices otherwise contain the particulars required under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. An address retained in the service provider's accounting system is a technical discrepancy and does not, by itself, determine substantive credit eligibility. Denial without considering the assessee's explanation, objections, and entitlement on merits is unsustainable. The credit denial and consequential demand, interest, and penalty were set aside, with fresh adjudication required after notice and hearing. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796722