https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87360 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the duty-paying documents were received later, where the credit was entered before receipt of the documents but utilised only after the subsidiary certificate was issued and there was no allegation of non-receipt or misuse of inputs; on those facts, the duty demand was unsustainable. However, non-compliance with the Trade Notice requirements was still a separate irregularity, as the bills lacked the prescribed reference for the subsidiary certificate facility, so penalty was upheld despite deletion of the demand. en-us Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:56:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87360 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the duty-paying documents were received later, where the credit was entered before receipt of the documents but utilised only after the subsidiary certificate was issued and there was no allegation of non-receipt or misuse of inputs; on those facts, the duty demand was unsustainable. However, non-compliance with the Trade Notice requirements was still a separate irregularity, as the bills lacked the prescribed reference for the subsidiary certificate facility, so penalty was upheld despite deletion of the demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87360