https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120020 Modvat credit was denied because the assessee failed to prove that the goods received were the same inputs covered by its declaration and were in fact rejected or sub-standard materials used in manufacture. The invoice and Form D-3 referred to finished APCO synthetic enamel, not rejected paint, and the declaration described different inputs. As the record did not establish identity between the invoiced goods and the declared inputs, and no reliable material showed that the consignment was sub-standard or rejected, the goods were treated as finished marketable products. Demand and penalty were therefore sustained. en-us Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:04:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120020 Modvat credit was denied because the assessee failed to prove that the goods received were the same inputs covered by its declaration and were in fact rejected or sub-standard materials used in manufacture. The invoice and Form D-3 referred to finished APCO synthetic enamel, not rejected paint, and the declaration described different inputs. As the record did not establish identity between the invoiced goods and the declared inputs, and no reliable material showed that the consignment was sub-standard or rejected, the goods were treated as finished marketable products. Demand and penalty were therefore sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120020