Modvat credit requires prescribed duplicate documents; triplicate copy alone is insufficient without proof of loss of the duplicate.

Modvat credit for inputs received from a job worker was admissible only on the prescribed duplicate challan or invoice copy, unless loss of that document was established. The assessee relied on a triplicate copy without producing proof that the duplicate copy was lost, so the statutory exception for alternate documents did not apply. The defect was not treated as a mere procedural irregularity because the rule itself controlled the document basis for credit. Credit on the triplicate copy was therefore impermissible, and the order allowing credit was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied for receipt of inputs from a job worker on a triplicate challan or invoice copy when the duplicate copy was allegedly lost, but no proof of such loss was produced.

Analysis: Credit under the relevant rules was admissible only on the prescribed duplicate document unless the assessee established loss of that document. The respondents relied on a triplicate copy without proving loss of the duplicate copy. The lapse was not a mere procedural irregularity because the rules prescribed the document on which credit could be taken and the exception for alternate documents applied only on proof of loss. The circular and cited decisions did not assist the respondents on these facts.

Conclusion: Modvat credit on the triplicate copy was not permissible. The order allowing the credit was unsustainable and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

---