Modvat credit cannot be denied on mere technical objections where the invoice identifies the consignee and goods route through another unit.

Modvat credit cannot be denied on a purely technical objection where the invoice identifies the consignee and the inputs were first moved through another unit of the same assessee; that routing, by itself, does not establish a disqualifying contravention. The invoice was also not shown to be invalid merely because the assessee's name appeared in ink. The document further notes that an appellate dismissal based only on non-deposit of duty and penalty could not stand in light of the merits of the credit dispute, and the matter had to be heard and decided without insisting on pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be denied because the inputs were first carried to another unit of the same assessee before being sent to the unit shown as consignee in the invoice, and because the invoice bore the assessee's name in ink. (ii) Whether the dismissal of the departmental appeal for non-deposit of duty and penalty could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be denied because the inputs were first carried to another unit of the same assessee before being sent to the unit shown as consignee in the invoice, and because the invoice bore the assessee's name in ink.

Analysis: The invoice named the Ambad unit as consignee. Routing the consignment first to another unit of the same assessee did not, by itself, establish a contravention warranting denial of credit. The presence of the assessee's name in ink on the invoice was also not shown to invalidate the document for availing credit.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit and the proposed penalty were not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the dismissal of the departmental appeal for non-deposit of duty and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The appellate dismissal rested only on failure to deposit the demanded amounts. In light of the merits of the credit dispute, that dismissal could not stand.

Conclusion: The order dismissing the appeal for non-deposit was set aside and the appeal was directed to be heard and disposed of without insisting on any deposit.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted to the assessee on both the merits of Modvat credit and the procedural question of pre-deposit, and the matter was restored for disposal on appeal without insisting on deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied on a merely technical objection where the invoice identifies the consignee and the movement of goods through another unit of the same assessee does not show a substantive rule violation; a document is not invalidated merely because the assessee's name appears in ink.

---