https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97806 Modvat credit was available only where inputs were received under a statutory invoice issued to the consignee claiming credit. An invoice made out to a different person did not satisfy Rule 57G(2) read with Rule 52A, because the consignee-specific invoice was a substantive condition of the scheme, not a dispensable procedural formality. Mere proof that duty had been paid on the inputs was insufficient to support credit, and the earlier proforma credit approach under Rule 56A did not govern this scheme. Credit was therefore not admissible on an invoice issued in another person's name. en-us Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:39:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97806 Modvat credit was available only where inputs were received under a statutory invoice issued to the consignee claiming credit. An invoice made out to a different person did not satisfy Rule 57G(2) read with Rule 52A, because the consignee-specific invoice was a substantive condition of the scheme, not a dispensable procedural formality. Mere proof that duty had been paid on the inputs was insufficient to support credit, and the earlier proforma credit approach under Rule 56A did not govern this scheme. Credit was therefore not admissible on an invoice issued in another person's name. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97806