https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118706 The denial of Modvat credit to the respondents was upheld due to discrepancies in the invoice, where the name of the respondents was not correctly indicated. Despite arguments and evidence presented by the appellant, including a post-order affidavit and a certificate from a logistics company, the lack of substantial proof of direct delivery and payment to the respondents led to the dismissal of their claims. The Board found that relevant circulars and legal precedents cited were not applicable in this case, as the omission of the respondents' name was not considered a mere technical error. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the revenue's appeal was granted with consequential relief. en-us Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:03:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118706 The denial of Modvat credit to the respondents was upheld due to discrepancies in the invoice, where the name of the respondents was not correctly indicated. Despite arguments and evidence presented by the appellant, including a post-order affidavit and a certificate from a logistics company, the lack of substantial proof of direct delivery and payment to the respondents led to the dismissal of their claims. The Board found that relevant circulars and legal precedents cited were not applicable in this case, as the omission of the respondents' name was not considered a mere technical error. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the revenue's appeal was granted with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118706