https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92742 Modvat credit on imported capital goods was held admissible where the bill of entry stood in the head office's name but the goods were intended for and installed at the eligible factory. Delay or omission in the prescribed intimation was treated as a procedural lapse that did not defeat the substantive credit claim, subject to verification of installation. On the notification issue, the Tribunal followed the Larger Bench view in Jawahar Mills and did not accept the Revenue's objection that Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.) required separate treatment; the credit position was to be governed by that ruling. en-us Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:21:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92742 Modvat credit on imported capital goods was held admissible where the bill of entry stood in the head office's name but the goods were intended for and installed at the eligible factory. Delay or omission in the prescribed intimation was treated as a procedural lapse that did not defeat the substantive credit claim, subject to verification of installation. On the notification issue, the Tribunal followed the Larger Bench view in Jawahar Mills and did not accept the Revenue's objection that Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.) required separate treatment; the credit position was to be governed by that ruling. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92742