https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428 Credit was admissible where duty-paid inputs were diverted to the assessee on an endorsed invoice after the original consignee refused delivery, and the jurisdictional Range Superintendent's endorsement followed Board circular instructions. The endorsed document was treated as valid under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the facts showed a bona fide authorised diversion rather than a sham transaction. Because there was no basis to infer bogus credit, non-receipt of inputs, or credit in excess of duty paid, the Revenue's objection failed and the assessee's entitlement to credit was restored. en-us Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428 Credit was admissible where duty-paid inputs were diverted to the assessee on an endorsed invoice after the original consignee refused delivery, and the jurisdictional Range Superintendent's endorsement followed Board circular instructions. The endorsed document was treated as valid under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the facts showed a bona fide authorised diversion rather than a sham transaction. Because there was no basis to infer bogus credit, non-receipt of inputs, or credit in excess of duty paid, the Revenue's objection failed and the assessee's entitlement to credit was restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428