https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94659 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because returned inputs were supported by documents not issued in the assessee's name, where the same inputs were shown to have been removed on duty and later brought back to the factory. The absence of an ideal endorsement or strict D-3 compliance was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a substantive bar to credit, because the receipt of goods could still be verified from the available records. On that basis, the assessee was not to be penalised for the documentary defect and credit was allowed. en-us Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:53:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94659 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because returned inputs were supported by documents not issued in the assessee's name, where the same inputs were shown to have been removed on duty and later brought back to the factory. The absence of an ideal endorsement or strict D-3 compliance was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a substantive bar to credit, because the receipt of goods could still be verified from the available records. On that basis, the assessee was not to be penalised for the documentary defect and credit was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94659