https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118918 Credit under Notifications No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.) and 33/94-C.E. (N.T.) was available on the basis of invoices issued by registered dealers, and the dealer's original invoice was sufficient for availment. Denial of credit solely because the appellants did not file the triplicate copy was unsustainable, since the appellate authority overlooked the notifications' express basis for credit. The operative legal point is that documentary compliance must be assessed against the notification itself, and credit cannot be refused on a requirement not imposed by it. en-us Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118918 Credit under Notifications No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.) and 33/94-C.E. (N.T.) was available on the basis of invoices issued by registered dealers, and the dealer's original invoice was sufficient for availment. Denial of credit solely because the appellants did not file the triplicate copy was unsustainable, since the appellate authority overlooked the notifications' express basis for credit. The operative legal point is that documentary compliance must be assessed against the notification itself, and credit cannot be refused on a requirement not imposed by it. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118918