https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103636 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the depot was not registered on the challan date, since administrative instructions treated depots registered before 31-12-1994 as registered for the earlier period as well. Credit was also upheld where the challan and invoice carried the essential duty and identification particulars required by Notification No. 15/94, as this amounted to substantial compliance with Rule 57G and Rule 52A requirements. On both points, technical defects did not justify denial of credit, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:05:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103636 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the depot was not registered on the challan date, since administrative instructions treated depots registered before 31-12-1994 as registered for the earlier period as well. Credit was also upheld where the challan and invoice carried the essential duty and identification particulars required by Notification No. 15/94, as this amounted to substantial compliance with Rule 57G and Rule 52A requirements. On both points, technical defects did not justify denial of credit, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103636