https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113225 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because a manufacturer's depot was unregistered when the depot-registration requirement under Rule 57G(3)(b) had not yet come into force; invoices issued by the depot in 1994 were therefore sufficient for credit. Credit also remained admissible where the factory-to-depot invoice was in the depot's name, since the relevant duty-paying invoice for availing credit bore the claimant's name and satisfied the documentary requirement. On both points, the disallowance of credit was not sustainable and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2012 14:18:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113225 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because a manufacturer's depot was unregistered when the depot-registration requirement under Rule 57G(3)(b) had not yet come into force; invoices issued by the depot in 1994 were therefore sufficient for credit. Credit also remained admissible where the factory-to-depot invoice was in the depot's name, since the relevant duty-paying invoice for availing credit bore the claimant's name and satisfied the documentary requirement. On both points, the disallowance of credit was not sustainable and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113225