https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53220 Deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-C.E. was unavailable because the notification required proof that the inputs had been received directly from the manufacturer and that appropriate duty had actually been discharged on them. The first condition was undisputed, but the invoices only stated that duty liability was "to be discharged" under Rule 96ZP(3), which was not an affirmation of actual discharge of duty. The appellate authority's view that duty had been paid was inconsistent with the invoice wording. Credit was therefore denied and the original disallowance restored. en-us Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:20:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53220 Deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-C.E. was unavailable because the notification required proof that the inputs had been received directly from the manufacturer and that appropriate duty had actually been discharged on them. The first condition was undisputed, but the invoices only stated that duty liability was "to be discharged" under Rule 96ZP(3), which was not an affirmation of actual discharge of duty. The appellate authority's view that duty had been paid was inconsistent with the invoice wording. Credit was therefore denied and the original disallowance restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53220