Modvat credit cannot be denied for a minor invoice marking defect when inputs were received, consumed, and duty paid.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices lacked specific markings for original, duplicate, consignee or transporter copies where the inputs were admittedly received, consumed and duty paid. The invoice endorsement stated that the customer or transporter copy was to be used for claiming credit under Rule 57G, and the supporting trade notice also recognised that copy for Modvat purposes. The absence of the particular copy designation was treated as a documentary irregularity, not a substantive defect, so denial of credit on that ground was unsustainable and the credit was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices did not bear the specific endorsement of original, duplicate, consignee copy, or transporter copy, when the inputs were admittedly received, consumed, and duty paid.

Analysis: The disputed credit was taken on invoices issued by a public sector undertaking. The record showed that the inputs covered by those invoices were actually received and consumed by the appellant, and their duty-paid character was not in dispute. The invoices were also accompanied by an endorsement stating that the customer/transporter copy was to be used for taking Modvat credit under Rule 57G. In that context, the absence of a particular copy-marking on the invoices was treated as a mere documentary irregularity and not a valid ground to deny credit. The trade notice relied upon also supported the view that the customer copy could serve the Modvat purpose.

Conclusion: Denial of Modvat credit on the stated ground was held to be unsustainable, and the credit was allowed.

---