Modvat credit cannot be denied for mere invoice defects, though disputed dealer registration may justify limited remand.

Modvat credit could not be denied on invoices for mere technical defects in form where the substantive entitlement was otherwise supported, so credit was allowed on nine invoices with handwritten serial numbers and on three invoices said to be unauthenticated or not in the prescribed format. Where the only disputed invoice raised a factual conflict on whether the issuing dealer was registered, the matter required limited remand for verification. The assessee thus succeeded on twelve invoices, while the remaining invoice was sent back for fresh examination on dealer registration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be denied on nine invoices merely because the invoice serial number was handwritten and not pre-printed; (ii) Whether Modvat credit could be denied on three invoices on the grounds that the invoices were unauthenticated and not in the prescribed format; (iii) Whether denial of credit on one invoice on the ground that the issuing dealer was not registered required remand for verification.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be denied on nine invoices merely because the invoice serial number was handwritten and not pre-printed.

Analysis: The objection related only to the form of the invoice serial number. The Tribunal took note of the cited precedent and the factual position of the invoices.

Conclusion: The credit claim on these nine invoices was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit could be denied on three invoices on the grounds that the invoices were unauthenticated and not in the prescribed format.

Analysis: The objection concerned the authenticity and format of the invoices. The Tribunal relied on the cited case law and the material placed before it.

Conclusion: The credit claim on these three invoices was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether denial of credit on one invoice on the ground that the issuing dealer was not registered required remand for verification.

Analysis: The invoice showed a registration number, while the authorities had recorded a contrary finding that the dealer was unregistered. In view of this dispute, further verification by the adjudicating authority was considered necessary.

Conclusion: The matter on this one invoice was remanded for limited reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on twelve invoices, while the remaining invoice was sent back for fresh examination on the limited question of dealer registration.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied on mere technical or format-related defects in invoices when the substantive entitlement is otherwise supported, but a disputed foundational fact such as dealer registration may require verification on remand.

---