https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105373 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because a second-stage dealer issued invoices after cancellation of the first-stage dealer's registration, where there was no proof that the cancellation had been served or communicated to the dealer concerned. Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 required communication of the cancellation order, so denial based only on the date of the order rested on presumptions rather than evidence. The Tribunal also noted that absence of a godown was not a mandatory condition for dealer registration under Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, making the cancellation itself unsustainable. en-us Tue, 23 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:48:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105373 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because a second-stage dealer issued invoices after cancellation of the first-stage dealer's registration, where there was no proof that the cancellation had been served or communicated to the dealer concerned. Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 required communication of the cancellation order, so denial based only on the date of the order rested on presumptions rather than evidence. The Tribunal also noted that absence of a godown was not a mandatory condition for dealer registration under Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, making the cancellation itself unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105373