Modvat credit cannot be denied for a procedural invoice endorsement defect when inputs reach the assessee's registered premises.

A purely procedural defect in invoice endorsement or routing of inputs to a different godown did not justify denial of Modvat credit where both premises belonged to the same registered dealer and the inputs were otherwise received in the assessee's registered premises. The discrepancy arose because the invoices carried the registration number of one godown while the goods were sent to another godown of the same appellant, but this did not affect the substantive entitlement to credit. Modvat credit was therefore admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied for a procedural mistake in endorsing invoices and sending inputs to a different godown belonging to the same registered dealer.

Analysis: The appellant maintained two registered godowns and the inputs were received and routed through those godowns by endorsement of invoices. The discrepancy arose because the invoices mentioned the registration number of one godown while the goods were sent to the other godown of the same appellant. The mistake was treated as procedural, and no substantive basis was found to deny credit when both premises belonged to the appellant and the invoices were otherwise used for receipt of inputs.

Conclusion: Denial of Modvat credit was not justified and the appellant was entitled to the credit.

Ratio Decidendi: A purely procedural defect in invoice endorsement or routing of inputs does not justify denial of Modvat credit when the goods are received in the assessee's own registered premises.

---