https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116253 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices were received after the inputs, where the Department produced no evidence that the inputs were non-duty paid. Receipt of goods through registered dealers and later billing in the principal manufacturer's name did not by itself defeat the credit claim. Record irregularities were treated as technical and insufficient to justify penalty. As the demand failed on merits, the extended period issue did not affect the result. Credit was therefore admissible, the demand was unsustainable, and penalty was not warranted. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:50:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116253 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices were received after the inputs, where the Department produced no evidence that the inputs were non-duty paid. Receipt of goods through registered dealers and later billing in the principal manufacturer's name did not by itself defeat the credit claim. Record irregularities were treated as technical and insufficient to justify penalty. As the demand failed on merits, the extended period issue did not affect the result. Credit was therefore admissible, the demand was unsustainable, and penalty was not warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116253