https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51739 Technical defects in Modvat documentation did not by themselves justify denial of credit where the assessee had only one factory, the inputs were received and used there, and the invoice showing the head office address created no risk of double credit; credit was therefore admissible on that ground. For dealer invoices issued before 19-1-1995, credit could not be refused merely because the invoices were not marked original or duplicate or because they omitted mode and time of transport, since those requirements arose later and were not part of the prescribed form. Credit was, however, inadmissible on a SAIL customer copy invoice because it was not the prescribed eligible copy. en-us Wed, 07 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:56:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51739 Technical defects in Modvat documentation did not by themselves justify denial of credit where the assessee had only one factory, the inputs were received and used there, and the invoice showing the head office address created no risk of double credit; credit was therefore admissible on that ground. For dealer invoices issued before 19-1-1995, credit could not be refused merely because the invoices were not marked original or duplicate or because they omitted mode and time of transport, since those requirements arose later and were not part of the prescribed form. Credit was, however, inadmissible on a SAIL customer copy invoice because it was not the prescribed eligible copy. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51739