Modvat credit cannot be denied for minor invoice defects when duty-paid inputs are received and used in manufacture.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices lacked pre-authentication or contained minor defects in describing duplicate copies, where duty payment, receipt of inputs in the factory, and use in manufacture were otherwise established. The defects were treated as procedural and rectifiable, and the assessee had to be given an opportunity to cure them. In the light of Rule 57G(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the related notification, and the Board's circular, such minor lapses were insufficient to defeat credit. The assessee's entitlement to Modvat credit was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on invoices for want of pre-authentication and for minor defects in the description of duplicate copies.

Analysis: The inputs were not in dispute as to duty payment, receipt in the factory, and use in manufacture. The only objections related to invoice formalities. Non-pre-authentication was treated as a rectifiable defect, and the assessee had to be given an opportunity to cure it. The other objections were also held to be merely procedural, since the invoices otherwise indicated their duplicate status. In the light of Rule 57G(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the related notification and the Board's circular, minor lapses could not be the basis for denial of credit.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on these procedural defects, and the order allowing credit was .

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the grant of Modvat credit failed, and the assessee's entitlement to credit was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Minor procedural defects in Modvat invoices, including absence of pre-authentication or imperfect marking of duplicate copies, do not justify denial of credit where receipt, duty-paid nature, and use of inputs are established.

---