https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50954 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because a first stage dealer's invoice carried a rubber-stamped marking instead of a pre-printed one. Rule 57GG(5)(b) required the invoice to be marked as that of a first stage or second stage dealer, and rubber stamping satisfied that requirement. The Board circular also accepted use of existing stationery with rubber stamping or typewriting up to the relevant cut-off date. As the duty-paid nature of the inputs and their receipt were not disputed, denial of credit was unjustified and relief was due to the assessee. en-us Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:32:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50954 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because a first stage dealer's invoice carried a rubber-stamped marking instead of a pre-printed one. Rule 57GG(5)(b) required the invoice to be marked as that of a first stage or second stage dealer, and rubber stamping satisfied that requirement. The Board circular also accepted use of existing stationery with rubber stamping or typewriting up to the relevant cut-off date. As the duty-paid nature of the inputs and their receipt were not disputed, denial of credit was unjustified and relief was due to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50954