https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93231 Modvat credit could not be denied on subsidiary gate passes where the appellant was shown as the original customer and the sales agency was only a delivery channel. The document treated the agency endorsement as unnecessary because the appellant's name and address already identified it as the consignee for credit purposes. A further endorsement by another unit was only to avoid confusion and did not impair the gate pass as a duty-paying document. On that footing, denial of credit on the ground of double endorsement was unjustified, and the penalty was not sustainable. en-us Fri, 24 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:14:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93231 Modvat credit could not be denied on subsidiary gate passes where the appellant was shown as the original customer and the sales agency was only a delivery channel. The document treated the agency endorsement as unnecessary because the appellant's name and address already identified it as the consignee for credit purposes. A further endorsement by another unit was only to avoid confusion and did not impair the gate pass as a duty-paying document. On that footing, denial of credit on the ground of double endorsement was unjustified, and the penalty was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93231