https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113813 After 1-4-94, endorsed invoices were not valid documents for Modvat credit, so credit taken on endorsed invoices was disallowed and the related demand was held within the extended limitation period because the relevant facts were disclosed only later. Credit based on original copies of invoices was also disallowed, following the applicable Larger Bench view. By contrast, invoices with non-pre-authentication and no pre-printed serial numbers were treated as minor procedural defects, and credit was allowed where duty-paid receipt and use of inputs in manufacture were not in dispute. Penalty was upheld in principle for suppression, but reduced as excessive in the circumstances. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 May 2012 15:26:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113813 After 1-4-94, endorsed invoices were not valid documents for Modvat credit, so credit taken on endorsed invoices was disallowed and the related demand was held within the extended limitation period because the relevant facts were disclosed only later. Credit based on original copies of invoices was also disallowed, following the applicable Larger Bench view. By contrast, invoices with non-pre-authentication and no pre-printed serial numbers were treated as minor procedural defects, and credit was allowed where duty-paid receipt and use of inputs in manufacture were not in dispute. Penalty was upheld in principle for suppression, but reduced as excessive in the circumstances. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113813