https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104714 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because dealer-issued documents were described as subsidiary invoices, where they were issued by a registered dealer under Rule 57GG and indicated they were meant for Modvat credit. The descriptive label alone was insufficient to reject credit, because entitlement still depended on verification of the invoices' duty-paid character, the dealer's registration, receipt of inputs in the factory, and use of those inputs in manufacture. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh examination of eligibility on the factual prerequisites for credit. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:53:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104714 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because dealer-issued documents were described as subsidiary invoices, where they were issued by a registered dealer under Rule 57GG and indicated they were meant for Modvat credit. The descriptive label alone was insufficient to reject credit, because entitlement still depended on verification of the invoices' duty-paid character, the dealer's registration, receipt of inputs in the factory, and use of those inputs in manufacture. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh examination of eligibility on the factual prerequisites for credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104714