Modvat credit on invoice defects and structural materials: technical invoice errors did not bar credit, but civil foundation steel was ineligible.

Modvat credit was held admissible where invoice corrections did not affect the duty-paid character of the goods and a jurisdictional certificate showed the export-clearance endorsement was to be treated as omitted, so the document was treated as a home-clearance invoice. Credit also could not be denied merely because the invoice carried a rubber-stamped or computer-printed serial number instead of a preprinted one. However, steel bars and rods used as structural material in civil foundation work were not parts, components or accessories of machinery and, having become part of immovable property, were not capital goods under Rule 57Q; credit on that item was disallowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit was admissible on an invoice containing corrections and an endorsement treated as omitted for home clearance; whether credit could be denied merely because the invoice did not bear a preprinted serial number; and whether steel bars and rods used in civil foundation work were eligible as capital goods under Rule 57Q.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit was admissible on an invoice containing corrections and an endorsement treated as omitted for home clearance.

Analysis: The invoice showed corrections in the assessable value columns, but the duty amount was correctly entered and the duty-paid nature of the goods was not in dispute. The supporting certificate from the jurisdictional Range Superintendent clarified that the printed words indicating export clearance were to be treated as omitted, so the document was to be treated as one for home clearance. The rejection of the credit on this ground was therefore not justified.

Conclusion: The credit of Rs. 1,058 was admissible to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether credit could be denied merely because the invoice did not bear a preprinted serial number.

Analysis: Denial of credit solely on the ground that the invoice bore a rubber-stamped or computer-printed serial number, instead of a preprinted serial number, was held to be impermissible in view of the Tribunal's Larger Bench view relied upon by the order.

Conclusion: The credit of Rs. 3,272 could not be denied on that ground and was allowable.

Issue (iii): Whether steel bars and rods used in civil foundation work were eligible as capital goods under Rule 57Q.

Analysis: The finding of the lower appellate authority that the goods were used as structural materials in civil foundation work and not as parts, components, or accessories of machinery was not effectively challenged. Materials that become part of immovable property do not qualify as capital goods for Modvat purposes under Rule 57Q.

Conclusion: The credit of Rs. 1,22,601 was not admissible.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted only for the admissible credit items, while the disallowance relating to structural materials was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied on merely technical defects in the invoice where duty payment and identity of the goods are otherwise established, and materials used as structural components in immovable civil foundation work are not capital goods eligible for credit under Rule 57Q.

---