Modvat credit on stamped invoice endorsements and broad capital goods coverage upheld for manufacture-related items.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoice copies bore a stamped endorsement, rather than a printed one, where the rule required the copies to be marked and did not insist on printing; the procedural requirement was therefore satisfied and credit was upheld. Capital goods were construed broadly after Jawahar Mills to cover goods used in or facilitating the manufacture process, not only items directly engaged in physical processing; the disputed items accordingly qualified for Modvat credit. The order granting credit was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices bore a stamped endorsement "Duplicate for transporter" instead of a printed endorsement; and (ii) whether the disputed items were capital goods eligible for Modvat credit under the relevant rule.

Issue (i): whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices bore a stamped endorsement "Duplicate for transporter" instead of a printed endorsement.

Analysis: The relevant circular permitted credit on the strength of invoices even where the requisite particulars were not pre-printed during the specified period. The rule required the copies of invoices to be marked, and did not insist that the endorsement be printed. The stamped endorsement therefore satisfied the procedural requirement.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on this ground, and the assessee's claim was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the disputed items were capital goods eligible for Modvat credit under the relevant rule.

Analysis: After the ruling on the scope of capital goods in Jawahar Mills, the definition was treated as very wide and as covering goods used in the manufacture process. The items in question were found to facilitate the production process and were not confined to direct physical processing alone.

Conclusion: The disputed items were capital goods eligible for Modvat credit.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order granting Modvat credit was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For Modvat purposes, procedural endorsement requirements on invoices are satisfied by marking even by stamp where the rule does not insist on printing, and capital goods are to be understood broadly to include goods used in or necessary for the manufacture process.

---