https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105606 Restoration of the appeal was justified because the duty demand had already been discharged by reversal of credit, so the earlier non-compliance basis no longer survived. On the Modvat issues, credit on explosives was admissible as the point was covered by binding Supreme Court authority, and credit on welding electrodes was likewise admissible because the issue was covered by a Larger Bench decision and a Supreme Court ruling. The result was restoration of the appeal and acceptance of both credit claims, with the governing principle that Modvat credit cannot be denied where binding precedent squarely supports admissibility. en-us Thu, 27 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:07:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105606 Restoration of the appeal was justified because the duty demand had already been discharged by reversal of credit, so the earlier non-compliance basis no longer survived. On the Modvat issues, credit on explosives was admissible as the point was covered by binding Supreme Court authority, and credit on welding electrodes was likewise admissible because the issue was covered by a Larger Bench decision and a Supreme Court ruling. The result was restoration of the appeal and acceptance of both credit claims, with the governing principle that Modvat credit cannot be denied where binding precedent squarely supports admissibility. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105606