Modvat credit on a duty-paid invoice cannot be denied merely because supply was routed through an agent, but proof of duplicate-loss is required.

An invoice that named an agent as the supply channel did not by itself justify denial of Modvat credit where the goods were received directly from the manufacturer, the invoice was issued in the assessee's name, and the duty-paid character of the goods was undisputed; credit was therefore allowed on that ground. By contrast, Modvat credit claimed on the original invoice required proof that the duplicate copy had been lost in transit, and in the absence of such proof the claim failed. The result was partial relief to the assessee, with one denial set aside and the other sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the invoice mentioned that the goods were supplied through an agent, though the goods were received directly from the manufacturer and the invoice was issued in the assessee's name. (ii) Whether Modvat credit on the original invoice could be allowed without proof of loss of the duplicate copy in transit.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the invoice mentioned that the goods were supplied through an agent, though the goods were received directly from the manufacturer and the invoice was issued in the assessee's name.

Analysis: The invoice contained the full particulars of the manufacturer, the duty paid nature of the goods, and the assessee's name as purchaser. No defect in the invoice form was shown, and receipt of the goods as well as their duty paid character was not disputed. The mere recital that supply was made through an agent did not invalidate the invoice for credit purposes.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit on this ground was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit on the original invoice could be allowed without proof of loss of the duplicate copy in transit.

Analysis: Credit on the original invoice was governed by the rule that the loss of the duplicate copy in transit had to be proved. As such proof was not furnished, the claim could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Modvat credit on this ground was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: One appeal succeeded and the other failed, resulting in a partial relief to the assessee and final disposal of both matters.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere endorsement that goods were supplied through an agent does not invalidate an otherwise proper duty-paid invoice for Modvat credit, but credit on an original invoice requires proof that the duplicate copy was lost in transit.

---