Modvat credit compliance error justified rectification where invoices lacked the prescribed "duplicate for transporter" marking.

Modvat credit was held inadmissible because the invoices did not bear the prescribed mark "duplicate for transporter", and the concurrent findings below upheld that defect. The earlier Tribunal order had dealt only with the colour of the invoices and had not addressed this live compliance issue, so the omission constituted a patent error apparent from the record. Rectification was therefore justified, and the appeal was amended to reject the claim for Modvat credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier order required rectification on the ground that the admissibility of Modvat credit had been decided without considering the finding that the invoices did not bear the mark "duplicate for transporter".

Analysis: The record showed that the show-cause notice specifically alleged absence of the prescribed marking on the invoices and that this issue had been denied but ultimately found against the assessee by the adjudicating authority. That finding had been affirmed in appeal below. The earlier Tribunal order had proceeded on the limited question of the colour of the invoices and had not examined the live issue of compliance with the prescribed marking requirement. Since Modvat invoices under the relevant rules were required to bear the mark "duplicate for transporter", and there was nothing on record to dislodge the concurrent findings below, the omission was a patent error apparent from the record.

Conclusion: The rectification application was rightly allowed, and the earlier order was amended to reject the appeal concerning Modvat credit of Rs. 66,595/-.

---