https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115944 Modvat credit on capital goods used indirectly in production was treated as admissible where the substantive scheme conditions were satisfied, and the allowance of credit on that count was upheld. Credit on inputs covered by invoices not standing in the assessee's name was not admissible, and that amount was disallowed. Non-filing or incomplete filing of the Rule 57T declaration did not, by itself, justify denial of capital goods credit after later relaxation of the declaration requirement, particularly where the substantive entitlement was otherwise established and penalty had already been imposed for the procedural lapse. The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of the inadmissible credit. en-us Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115944 Modvat credit on capital goods used indirectly in production was treated as admissible where the substantive scheme conditions were satisfied, and the allowance of credit on that count was upheld. Credit on inputs covered by invoices not standing in the assessee's name was not admissible, and that amount was disallowed. Non-filing or incomplete filing of the Rule 57T declaration did not, by itself, justify denial of capital goods credit after later relaxation of the declaration requirement, particularly where the substantive entitlement was otherwise established and penalty had already been imposed for the procedural lapse. The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of the inadmissible credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115944