https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114926 Modvat credit was held inadmissible because the goods were actually received by a job worker and the original gate pass had been altered to show the appellant as consignee; the credit entitlement depended on receipt of both the goods and the duty-paying document by the consignee shown in the gate pass, so the disallowance was upheld. Penalty under Rule 173Q(1) was not sustained because the record did not establish fraudulent intention sufficient to justify penal action, and the penalty was set aside. The result was that the appellant remained liable only for the disallowed credit amount. en-us Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 May 2012 13:25:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114926 Modvat credit was held inadmissible because the goods were actually received by a job worker and the original gate pass had been altered to show the appellant as consignee; the credit entitlement depended on receipt of both the goods and the duty-paying document by the consignee shown in the gate pass, so the disallowance was upheld. Penalty under Rule 173Q(1) was not sustained because the record did not establish fraudulent intention sufficient to justify penal action, and the penalty was set aside. The result was that the appellant remained liable only for the disallowed credit amount. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114926