Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 197 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - denial on the sole ground that their factory address was not reflected in the invoices and only their head office address was shown - period from April, 2010 to March, 2015 - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the credit was availed by the appellant after reflecting the same in their RG-23A Part-I and Part-II registers - It is well settled law that substantive benefit cannot be denied on the basis of procedural lapses, if any. The appellant had also their head office and the address stands shown inasmuch as orders might have placed from the head office. The Tribunal in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR VERSUS DAYALAL MEGHJI AND COMPANY [2015 (12) TMI 488 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that it is the appellant’s own head office and he would be entitled to take the credit on the basis of invoices issued in the name of the head office. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|