https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105647 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the duty debit could not be verified from the record where the inputs were supported by manufacturer-issued certificates countersigned by the jurisdictional Range office; the proper course was verification with the Range office, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration. A declaration under Rule 57G describing the input as graphite electrode was treated as sufficient to cover graphite electrode/nipple, so credit could not be refused for want of a more specific declaration. The denial of credit on that ground was set aside. en-us Mon, 11 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:32:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105647 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the duty debit could not be verified from the record where the inputs were supported by manufacturer-issued certificates countersigned by the jurisdictional Range office; the proper course was verification with the Range office, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration. A declaration under Rule 57G describing the input as graphite electrode was treated as sufficient to cover graphite electrode/nipple, so credit could not be refused for want of a more specific declaration. The denial of credit on that ground was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105647