https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115457 Modvat credit was admissible on qualifying inputs lying in a job worker's premises because the same entitlement had already been accepted on identical facts and no distinction arose merely from the location of the inputs. Credit was also sought on yarn embedded in received fabric, but that claim failed because the assessee received fabric, not yarn, and produced no documentary proof that duty had been paid on yarn as a separately received input. The governing rule permitted credit only for inputs received by the manufacturer, so absence of proof of receipt and duty-paid character justified denial on that item. en-us Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 May 2012 17:26:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115457 Modvat credit was admissible on qualifying inputs lying in a job worker's premises because the same entitlement had already been accepted on identical facts and no distinction arose merely from the location of the inputs. Credit was also sought on yarn embedded in received fabric, but that claim failed because the assessee received fabric, not yarn, and produced no documentary proof that duty had been paid on yarn as a separately received input. The governing rule permitted credit only for inputs received by the manufacturer, so absence of proof of receipt and duty-paid character justified denial on that item. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115457