https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118935 Modvat credit could not be denied where inputs were shown as received under duty-paying documents, recorded in RG 23A Part I, and supported by prior departmental visits; the allegation of non-receipt and absence of manufacture was not established, so the credit denial failed. The demand for differential duty, with penalties and interest, also could not survive because it proceeded on an inconsistent premise of no manufacture while duty had already been paid on the clearances, and the factual basis for that premise was not proved. The assessee therefore obtained relief on both the credit and demand issues. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:36:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118935 Modvat credit could not be denied where inputs were shown as received under duty-paying documents, recorded in RG 23A Part I, and supported by prior departmental visits; the allegation of non-receipt and absence of manufacture was not established, so the credit denial failed. The demand for differential duty, with penalties and interest, also could not survive because it proceeded on an inconsistent premise of no manufacture while duty had already been paid on the clearances, and the factual basis for that premise was not proved. The assessee therefore obtained relief on both the credit and demand issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118935