Modvat credit cannot be denied for handwritten invoices when substantive eligibility requirements are otherwise met.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because dealer invoices were handwritten rather than pre-printed, where the substantive requirements of law were otherwise satisfied. The denial rested only on a procedural objection under Notification No. 23/95-CE(NT), but the Tribunal accepted the consistent view that a mere procedural lapse, without failure of the substantive conditions for credit, is not a sufficient basis to refuse Modvat credit. Interference with the order allowing credit was therefore unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the dealer's invoices were not pre-printed and were handwritten, when the substantive requirements were otherwise satisfied.

Analysis: The denial of credit rested only on a procedural objection under Notification No. 23/95-CE(NT) dated 30.5.95. The Tribunal noted that the substantive requirements of law had been met and that there was no justification to deny Modvat credit for a mere procedural lapse. It also noted the consistent view that credit should not be denied solely because invoices were handwritten instead of pre-printed.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the ground that the invoices were handwritten, and interference with the order allowing credit was not warranted.

---