https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327029 After the amendment to Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, Modvat credit was required to rest only on the prescribed duty-paying documents. Invoices had to satisfy the statutory conditions under the notifications issued under Rule 57G, and endorsement of invoices by the consignee was no longer permitted as a valid basis for credit. Applying the larger Bench ruling in Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., the Gujarat HC treated the prescribed documentary requirements as mandatory and held that credit could not be taken on endorsed invoices. Modvat credit on such invoices was therefore not admissible, and the Tribunal's contrary view was rejected. en-us Mon, 25 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Nov 2016 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327029 After the amendment to Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, Modvat credit was required to rest only on the prescribed duty-paying documents. Invoices had to satisfy the statutory conditions under the notifications issued under Rule 57G, and endorsement of invoices by the consignee was no longer permitted as a valid basis for credit. Applying the larger Bench ruling in Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., the Gujarat HC treated the prescribed documentary requirements as mandatory and held that credit could not be taken on endorsed invoices. Modvat credit on such invoices was therefore not admissible, and the Tribunal's contrary view was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327029