Modvat credit on original invoice after duplicate loss required fresh verification, not outright rejection on an incorrect premise.

Modvat credit could be considered on the original invoice where the duplicate invoice was lost in transit, subject to verification by the Assistant Commissioner and scrutiny under the governing circulars. The rejection based solely on the view that such permission could be granted only to a manufacturer, and not to a dealer, was not in line with the contemplated verification process. The matter was therefore remanded to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for fresh examination of eligibility and for a lawful order after giving the party an opportunity to be heard.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be allowed on the original invoice of a dealer where the duplicate invoice was lost in transit, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the jurisdictional authority.

Analysis: Modvat credit was noted to be admissible on the original copy of the invoice when the duplicate copy had been lost in transit, subject to satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner. The Board's circulars also indicated that such credit could be allowed after proper scrutiny and verification from the originating range. Since the authority below had rejected the request on the ground that permission could be granted only to a manufacturer and not to a dealer, and the matter had not been examined in the manner contemplated by the circular, fresh adjudication was considered necessary.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to examine the claim afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the party.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was sent back for reconsideration on the question of eligibility to Modvat credit on the basis of the original invoice, with no final determination on the merits of the claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where credit depends on verification under the governing circular and the prescribed scrutiny has not been undertaken, the proper course is fresh adjudication rather than final rejection on an incorrect legal premise.

---