Modvat credit depends on duty actually paid; procedural invoice defects cannot defeat substantive credit where particulars are already available.

Modvat credit is admissible where the invoice itself contains the particulars required by the relevant notification, because a procedural defect should not defeat substantive credit when the necessary facts are already on record. Credit cannot, however, be taken at a notional 12% rate if the input supplier actually paid duty at a lower rate, since the scheme ties credit to duty actually paid on the inputs. Where relief is granted only in part on the credit dispute, the penalty may be correspondingly reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit of Rs. 19,984 was admissible when the invoice contained the particulars required by the certificate contemplated under the relevant notifications; (ii) whether credit on the balance amount could be taken at 12% when the input suppliers had paid duty at a lower actual rate; and (iii) whether the penalty required interference.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit of Rs. 19,984 was admissible when the invoice contained the particulars required by the certificate contemplated under the relevant notifications.

Analysis: The invoice itself contained the particulars required by the prescribed certificate. The substantive benefit of Modvat credit cannot be denied on a mere procedural defect when the relevant factual particulars are already available in the invoice. The nature of the document, being a dealers invoice issued by a manufacturer having a depot, was treated as sufficient compliance with the notification requirement.

Conclusion: Credit of Rs. 19,984 was admissible in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether credit on the balance amount could be taken at 12% when the input suppliers had paid duty at a lower actual rate.

Analysis: Credit under the scheme was linked to the duty actually paid on the inputs. Where the supplier paid duty at less than 12%, the purchaser could not claim credit at the higher notional rate of 12% in excess of the duty actually paid.

Conclusion: The disallowance of credit of Rs. 47,729 was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty required interference.

Analysis: In view of the partial relief granted on credit, the penalty was correspondingly reconsidered and reduced.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 2,500.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded partly on the credit dispute, failed on the balance credit claim, and obtained reduction of penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied for a procedural lapse where the invoice itself contains the particulars required by the notification, but credit beyond the duty actually paid on the inputs is not permissible.

---