https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90855 Modvat credit could not be denied solely because dealer registration was granted after the cut-off date, where the registration application had been sent in time and the goods were received under challans during the transitional period. Applying Rule 174(9) of the Central Excise Rules, the Tribunal treated the dealer as registered from the date of dispatch of the application and accepted that procedural delay by the department should not defeat substantive credit entitlement. The credit benefit was therefore admissible, and the denial was unjustified. en-us Fri, 05 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:00:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90855 Modvat credit could not be denied solely because dealer registration was granted after the cut-off date, where the registration application had been sent in time and the goods were received under challans during the transitional period. Applying Rule 174(9) of the Central Excise Rules, the Tribunal treated the dealer as registered from the date of dispatch of the application and accepted that procedural delay by the department should not defeat substantive credit entitlement. The credit benefit was therefore admissible, and the denial was unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90855