https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94169 Modvat credit could not be denied solely because inputs were sent to a job worker without prior permission under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The omission was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive breach, where there was no allegation or evidence that the inputs were not actually sent or were not received back. The settled tribunal view applied was that failure to obtain permission by itself does not justify denial of credit when the substantive conditions are otherwise satisfied. en-us Mon, 05 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:41:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94169 Modvat credit could not be denied solely because inputs were sent to a job worker without prior permission under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The omission was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive breach, where there was no allegation or evidence that the inputs were not actually sent or were not received back. The settled tribunal view applied was that failure to obtain permission by itself does not justify denial of credit when the substantive conditions are otherwise satisfied. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94169