https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30598 Credit under Rule 57-T(7) required compliance with the prescribed procedure, so endorsed invoices alone were insufficient and that credit disallowance was sustained. Where invoices were issued in the names of both the appellant and the job worker, entitlement depended on factual verification by the adjudicating authority, and the matter was remanded for that purpose. Credit could not be denied merely on an alleged double-benefit theory involving damaged capital goods and replacement goods, so that disallowance was set aside. Penalty was also removed because the dispute was interpretative and no mala fide intention to misuse Modvat credit was found. en-us Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30598 Credit under Rule 57-T(7) required compliance with the prescribed procedure, so endorsed invoices alone were insufficient and that credit disallowance was sustained. Where invoices were issued in the names of both the appellant and the job worker, entitlement depended on factual verification by the adjudicating authority, and the matter was remanded for that purpose. Credit could not be denied merely on an alleged double-benefit theory involving damaged capital goods and replacement goods, so that disallowance was set aside. Penalty was also removed because the dispute was interpretative and no mala fide intention to misuse Modvat credit was found. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30598