https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88368 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because it was taken after six months where the invoices were issued by dealers who were registered only later and the governing notification and Board instruction allowed a liberal approach. Notification No. 64/94-C.E. and the corresponding instruction under Rule 57H permitted acceptance of invoices issued by dealers registered up to 31-12-1994. As the delay was linked to the dealers' later registration and the assessee's subsequent knowledge of that fact, and there was no allegation that the inputs were not duty paid or were not used in dutiable manufacture, the delay was treated as a procedural irregularity only. Credit was therefore admissible. en-us Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 14:28:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88368 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because it was taken after six months where the invoices were issued by dealers who were registered only later and the governing notification and Board instruction allowed a liberal approach. Notification No. 64/94-C.E. and the corresponding instruction under Rule 57H permitted acceptance of invoices issued by dealers registered up to 31-12-1994. As the delay was linked to the dealers' later registration and the assessee's subsequent knowledge of that fact, and there was no allegation that the inputs were not duty paid or were not used in dutiable manufacture, the delay was treated as a procedural irregularity only. Credit was therefore admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88368