https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50968 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because it was taken after six months where the original invoices were misplaced and the assessee had obtained permission to rely on substitute documents; the operative document for credit became the permission letter, and the credit was treated as timely. Credit was also not liable to rejection on inputs cleared and received back through the same invoice chain under Rule 57F(1)(ii) merely because the department alleged non-compliance with Rules 173H, 173L or 57F. The text emphasises that procedural irregularities may invite penalty, but they do not by themselves defeat otherwise eligible credit. en-us Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50968 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because it was taken after six months where the original invoices were misplaced and the assessee had obtained permission to rely on substitute documents; the operative document for credit became the permission letter, and the credit was treated as timely. Credit was also not liable to rejection on inputs cleared and received back through the same invoice chain under Rule 57F(1)(ii) merely because the department alleged non-compliance with Rules 173H, 173L or 57F. The text emphasises that procedural irregularities may invite penalty, but they do not by themselves defeat otherwise eligible credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50968