https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97527 Substantive eligibility to Modvat credit on imported capital goods could not be denied merely because the import documents named the holding firm, where the goods were actually received and installed in the appellants' unit and that factual position was verified before credit was taken. The procedural discrepancy in documentation did not override the underlying entitlement. A later Board circular could not be applied retrospectively to transactions completed before its issuance. Modvat credit was therefore admissible, and the Revenue's objection was rejected. en-us Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:30:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97527 Substantive eligibility to Modvat credit on imported capital goods could not be denied merely because the import documents named the holding firm, where the goods were actually received and installed in the appellants' unit and that factual position was verified before credit was taken. The procedural discrepancy in documentation did not override the underlying entitlement. A later Board circular could not be applied retrospectively to transactions completed before its issuance. Modvat credit was therefore admissible, and the Revenue's objection was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97527