https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94536 Notification No. 32/94 distinguished between invoices issued by dealers or importers and invoices issued by a manufacturer from his depot. Registration with the Central Excise Officer was required for dealer- or importer-issued invoices, but that condition was not extended to a manufacturer's depot. The omission was treated as deliberate because the manufacturer was already required to be registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. On that basis, the depot was recognised as a valid unit for issuing invoices supporting Modvat credit, and no separate registration of the depot was required. en-us Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:08:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94536 Notification No. 32/94 distinguished between invoices issued by dealers or importers and invoices issued by a manufacturer from his depot. Registration with the Central Excise Officer was required for dealer- or importer-issued invoices, but that condition was not extended to a manufacturer's depot. The omission was treated as deliberate because the manufacturer was already required to be registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. On that basis, the depot was recognised as a valid unit for issuing invoices supporting Modvat credit, and no separate registration of the depot was required. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94536