https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105349 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because dealers were unregistered when invoices were issued, where those dealers obtained registration before the extended cut-off date. The Tribunal applied the departmental circular extending registration time up to 31-12-94 and held that invoices from such dealers could not be rejected solely for initial non-registration. As the invoices remained valid duty-paying documents for Rule 57G purposes, the proposed recovery under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the credit. en-us Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:40:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105349 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because dealers were unregistered when invoices were issued, where those dealers obtained registration before the extended cut-off date. The Tribunal applied the departmental circular extending registration time up to 31-12-94 and held that invoices from such dealers could not be rejected solely for initial non-registration. As the invoices remained valid duty-paying documents for Rule 57G purposes, the proposed recovery under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105349