https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54437 Credit on Modvat duty-paying documents could not be denied merely because a duplicate EDI bill of entry was supported by a separate importer's certificate instead of a reverse endorsement, where that certificate served the same evidentiary purpose of confirming delivery of the goods. The requirement of prompt production of duty-paying documents was treated as a verification mechanism, and the documents had in fact been produced for defacing. The applicable Public Notice allowing credit on duplicate EDI bills of entry was relied on, along with precedent recognising a photocopy of the bill of entry with the importer's certificate as sufficient evidence for credit. On these facts, the documentary requirements were treated as substantially satisfied. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:30:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54437 Credit on Modvat duty-paying documents could not be denied merely because a duplicate EDI bill of entry was supported by a separate importer's certificate instead of a reverse endorsement, where that certificate served the same evidentiary purpose of confirming delivery of the goods. The requirement of prompt production of duty-paying documents was treated as a verification mechanism, and the documents had in fact been produced for defacing. The applicable Public Notice allowing credit on duplicate EDI bills of entry was relied on, along with precedent recognising a photocopy of the bill of entry with the importer's certificate as sufficient evidence for credit. On these facts, the documentary requirements were treated as substantially satisfied. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54437