https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93754 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices carried the assessee's name with a Delhi c/o address instead of the Jammu factory address where the goods were used. The invoices were in the respondent's name, the address entry was explained as a consignor's clerical mistake, the goods were duty paid, and credit had been taken only once. On those facts, the address discrepancy did not show any breach justifying denial of credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, and entitlement to Modvat credit was upheld. en-us Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:12:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93754 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices carried the assessee's name with a Delhi c/o address instead of the Jammu factory address where the goods were used. The invoices were in the respondent's name, the address entry was explained as a consignor's clerical mistake, the goods were duty paid, and credit had been taken only once. On those facts, the address discrepancy did not show any breach justifying denial of credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, and entitlement to Modvat credit was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93754