Modvat credit cannot be denied for technical invoice or declaration defects when entitlement is verifiable and curable.

Modvat credit cannot be denied for a merely formal defect where the invoice endorsement was rubber stamped rather than printed, if the practice was otherwise verified and accepted and the underlying entitlement was unaffected. The absence of a declaration that no refund of countervailing duty had been claimed on imported goods was treated as a technical procedural omission, because the fact could be verified by the authorities and the declaration could be furnished if required. The credit claim was therefore not defeated by either defect, and the Revenue challenge failed on all material grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be denied where the invoice endorsement was rubber stamped instead of printed and the practice was otherwise verified and accepted. (ii) Whether the absence of a declaration that no refund of countervailing duty had been claimed on imported goods was a fatal defect or a curable procedural requirement.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be denied where the invoice endorsement was rubber stamped instead of printed and the practice was otherwise verified and accepted.

Analysis: The defect related only to the form in which the prescribed words appeared on the invoice. The availability and misuse of inputs did not depend on whether the words were printed or rubber stamped. The record also showed acceptance of the practice and later reconfirmation of the invoice particulars.

Conclusion: The objection was not sustainable and Modvat credit could not be denied on this ground; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a declaration that no refund of countervailing duty had been claimed on imported goods was a fatal defect or a curable procedural requirement.

Analysis: The fact whether refund had been claimed was capable of verification by the excise authorities. The requirement was treated as a technical and procedural one, and the assessee could comply if the declaration was insisted upon.

Conclusion: The omission was a curable procedural defect and did not justify denial of credit; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed on all material grounds, and the allowance of Modvat credit was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A credit claim cannot be rejected for a merely formal or technical defect in invoice endorsement or declaration when the underlying entitlement is verifiable and the defect is capable of being cured.

---