Modvat credit on defective documents cannot be denied where receipt, duty-paid nature, and use of inputs are verified.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because duty-paying documents were defective or unauthenticated where receipt of inputs, their use in manufacture of dutiable final products, and the duty-paid nature of the inputs were not disputed. The document defects were treated as a technical lapse rather than a substantive breach, and the Board's Circular required verification of the core eligibility conditions despite such defects. The refusal of credit was therefore unsustainable, consistent with the Larger Bench view that substantial compliance is sufficient.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the duty-paying documents were defective or unauthenticated, when receipt of inputs, their use in manufacture of dutiable final products, and the duty-paid nature of the inputs were not in dispute.

Analysis: The defective character of the documents was treated as a technical lapse, not a substantive breach, where the material facts establishing duty-paid nature, receipt, and consumption of inputs stood verified. The Board's Circular required the authorities to examine these core aspects despite defects in documents, and the issue was already settled by the Larger Bench in favour of allowing credit on substantial compliance.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the facts found, and the refusal of credit was unsustainable.

---