https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116316 Capital goods Modvat credit for the relevant period had to be supported by the duplicate copy of the invoice under Rule 57T(3) read with Rule 57G(2); the original invoice was not the prescribed document, so credit on that basis was inadmissible. Rule 57T(3A), which later permitted credit on the original invoice where the duplicate copy was lost in transit, was inserted only by amendment and was not shown to be declaratory or retrospective, so it did not apply to the earlier period. The contrary decision relied on was treated as per incuriam and not followed. en-us Tue, 24 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:39:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116316 Capital goods Modvat credit for the relevant period had to be supported by the duplicate copy of the invoice under Rule 57T(3) read with Rule 57G(2); the original invoice was not the prescribed document, so credit on that basis was inadmissible. Rule 57T(3A), which later permitted credit on the original invoice where the duplicate copy was lost in transit, was inserted only by amendment and was not shown to be declaratory or retrospective, so it did not apply to the earlier period. The contrary decision relied on was treated as per incuriam and not followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116316