https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91811 Modvat credit was held admissible where the inputs were duty-paid, received in the factory and used in manufacture, even though movement through a job worker did not strictly follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 57F(2) and Rule 57F(3); the procedural lapse could not by itself justify denial of the substantive credit. Penalty, however, was sustained because the admitted non-compliance with the Modvat procedure remained a breach of the prescribed requirements, even though the quantum had already been reduced. The result was that the credit disallowance was set aside while the reduced penalty was maintained. en-us Tue, 18 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:31:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91811 Modvat credit was held admissible where the inputs were duty-paid, received in the factory and used in manufacture, even though movement through a job worker did not strictly follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 57F(2) and Rule 57F(3); the procedural lapse could not by itself justify denial of the substantive credit. Penalty, however, was sustained because the admitted non-compliance with the Modvat procedure remained a breach of the prescribed requirements, even though the quantum had already been reduced. The result was that the credit disallowance was set aside while the reduced penalty was maintained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91811