https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212065 Procedural documentation requirements for Modvat credit under Rule 57G were treated as clarificatory and applicable to pending matters, so the amendment and circular did not alter the substantive right to credit. Where duty payment, receipt of inputs in the factory, and their use in manufacture were not disputed, credit could not be denied merely because the invoices were not marked as duplicate. The court therefore upheld credit despite the technical lapse, holding that a procedural defect cannot defeat entitlement when the substantive conditions are established. The second substantial question was not argued and was not decided. en-us Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212065 Procedural documentation requirements for Modvat credit under Rule 57G were treated as clarificatory and applicable to pending matters, so the amendment and circular did not alter the substantive right to credit. Where duty payment, receipt of inputs in the factory, and their use in manufacture were not disputed, credit could not be denied merely because the invoices were not marked as duplicate. The court therefore upheld credit despite the technical lapse, holding that a procedural defect cannot defeat entitlement when the substantive conditions are established. The second substantial question was not argued and was not decided. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212065