https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106073 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because inter-unit removal of duty-paid inputs was supported by subsidiary gate passes or Superintendent-issued certificates instead of a GP.1 document. The inputs had been removed after reversal of earlier credit and payment of duty, and their duty-paid character was not in dispute. Rule 57F(1)(ii) did not require exclusive use of a GP.1, and the prescribed documents under Rule 57G included endorsed gate passes, subsidiary gate passes and subsidiary certificates issued by the Range Superintendent. Credit was therefore admissible on the strength of those authorised documents, and denial solely for non-use of GP.1 was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:38:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106073 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because inter-unit removal of duty-paid inputs was supported by subsidiary gate passes or Superintendent-issued certificates instead of a GP.1 document. The inputs had been removed after reversal of earlier credit and payment of duty, and their duty-paid character was not in dispute. Rule 57F(1)(ii) did not require exclusive use of a GP.1, and the prescribed documents under Rule 57G included endorsed gate passes, subsidiary gate passes and subsidiary certificates issued by the Range Superintendent. Credit was therefore admissible on the strength of those authorised documents, and denial solely for non-use of GP.1 was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106073