Modvat credit cannot be denied for invoice-description defects where duty payment and receipt of inputs are proved.

Modvat credit could not be denied where the invoice bore the manufacturer's stamp and duty particulars, even though it did not expressly state whether the supplier was a wholesale dealer or distributor; the credit was therefore admissible on that invoice. Credit also could not be refused merely because one claim was supported by extra copies of invoices, when receipt and use of the inputs were undisputed and the record showed duty payment with a valid explanation for the absence of endorsement on the originals; the disallowance was accordingly set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that one invoice was an extra copy not treated as a proper document and another invoice did not expressly state the status of the supplier, despite evidence of duty payment and receipt of inputs.

Analysis: The credit of Rs. 2,686/- was disallowed only because the invoice did not show whether the supplier was a wholesale dealer or distributor, but the invoice bore the manufacturer's stamp and recorded the relevant duty particulars. The credit of Rs. 1,71,856/- was denied because it was taken on extra copies of invoices, yet the receipt and use of the inputs were not disputed, and the certificate on record showed that duty had been paid and that the original invoices were not endorsed due to a computer problem. The authorities below ignored this material evidence.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on these grounds, and the assessee was entitled to credit of both disputed amounts.

---