Modvat credit for duty-paid inputs survives procedural unloading irregularities where invoice validity and receipt of goods are undisputed.

Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because duty-paid C.R. coils sold by a registered dealer were unloaded at the cutter's premises rather than at the dealer's registered premises, where the invoice was valid, the goods were admittedly duty paid, and their receipt and use as inputs were undisputed. The place of unloading was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a substantive defect defeating credit. Trade notices acknowledging practical difficulties in handling metal coils supported this approach. On that basis, the invoice remained effective for credit purposes and the related demand and penal consequences could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because duty-paid C.R. coils sold by a registered dealer were unloaded at the cutter's premises and not at the dealer's registered premises, and whether the consequent demand and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 57G permitted credit on receipt of inputs under a valid invoice issued by a registered dealer. The goods were admittedly duty paid, the dealer was registered, and the same coils were ultimately received and used as inputs after being cut into sheets. The absence of unloading at the dealer's registered premises was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a legal ground to deny credit, particularly where the identity and duty-paid nature of the goods was undisputed. The trade notices relied upon recognized practical difficulties in dealing with metal coils and supported such movement from a cutter's premises without defeating credit. In this setting, the invoices were not held invalid so as to deny Modvat credit, and the related demand and penal consequences could not stand.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was admissible and the assessee succeeded; the demand, interest, and penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside in the assessee's favour on the substantive credit issue, with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural departure in the place of unloading or cutting of duty-paid inputs does not by itself invalidate a dealer's invoice or defeat Modvat credit where the goods, their duty-paid character, and their receipt by the manufacturer are undisputed and the statutory scheme is otherwise substantially complied with.

---