https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103964 Modvat credit could not be denied solely because the supplier was registered as a manufacturer and not as a dealer, as manufacturer registration with the Central Excise Department was sufficient for the invoices to be treated as valid for Modvat purposes. On the second issue, subsidiary challans could support credit if they contained the particulars required by the applicable notification, so the document's compliance had to be verified on its contents rather than rejected outright. The credit denial on dealer registration was unjustified, and the validity of the remaining documents was remitted for fresh examination by the original authority. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:57:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103964 Modvat credit could not be denied solely because the supplier was registered as a manufacturer and not as a dealer, as manufacturer registration with the Central Excise Department was sufficient for the invoices to be treated as valid for Modvat purposes. On the second issue, subsidiary challans could support credit if they contained the particulars required by the applicable notification, so the document's compliance had to be verified on its contents rather than rejected outright. The credit denial on dealer registration was unjustified, and the validity of the remaining documents was remitted for fresh examination by the original authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103964