Defective Modvat documents cannot support credit when mandatory duty and supplier particulars are missing.

Modvat credit was inadmissible where the supporting cash memos and invoices lacked the mandatory particulars required under Rule 52-A, including identification of the manufacturer or importer, the duty-paid element, and adequate description of the goods. Those omissions were treated as defects going to the root of entitlement, not as mere procedural irregularities. Authorities dealing with minor lapses such as non-filing of declarations were distinguished because the present documents failed to satisfy the basic documentary conditions for credit. On that basis, credit was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied where the documents did not contain the particulars required under Rule 52-A and therefore did not establish the duty element and other mandatory details.

Analysis: The credit was claimed on the basis of cash memos/invoices that lacked the essential particulars required for availing Modvat credit, including details of the manufacturer or importer, the duty paid element, and proper identification of the goods. Such omissions were treated as defects going to the root of the entitlement and not as mere procedural irregularities. The earlier authorities relied on by the assessee were distinguished because they concerned minor lapses such as non-filing of declarations, whereas the present documents failed to satisfy the basic documentary requirements for credit.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was not admissible on such defective documents and the assessee was not entitled to credit.

---