Invoice loss and later permission request do not automatically defeat credit; authorities must verify the original invoice claim.

Loss of the duplicate copy of a supplier's invoice did not, by itself, make Modvat credit unavailable or invalidate the dealer invoices where credit had been taken on the original invoice. The authorities were required to examine the monthly return and the supporting invoices, and the Assistant Commissioner had to satisfy himself about the reported loss before deciding the request. A later formal application for permission did not automatically defeat the credit claim. The denial of credit and cancellation of invoices were therefore not sustained, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration on the basis of the original invoice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could be denied credit and the dealer invoices cancelled merely because the duplicate copy of the supplier's invoice was reported lost and a request for permission was made later on the basis of the original invoice.

Analysis: The assessee was required to file monthly returns with the jurisdictional central excise authorities along with the invoices. The loss of the duplicate invoice and the fact that credit had been taken on the basis of the original invoice were matters that could be examined by the authorities along with the return proceedings. A subsequent formal request did not, by itself, make the credit unavailable or render the invoices invalid. The proper course was for the Assistant Commissioner to examine the request and satisfy himself about the loss of the duplicate copy.

Conclusion: The denial of credit and cancellation of invoices were not sustained. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to consider the request for allowing credit on the basis of the original invoice.

---