Modvat credit cannot be denied for procedural defects alone when duty payment and use of inputs are established.

Mere non-compliance with Rule 7(1)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and defects in delivery notes were treated as insufficient to deny Modvat credit where the record showed duty payment on inputs and their use in manufacturing excisable goods. The analysis relied on Board Circular No. 441/7/99-CX dated 23-02-1999, which states that departure from procedure alone cannot justify rejection of credit when substantive entitlement is otherwise established. The credit issue was also viewed against an exemption-based position on duty liability, and the denial was found to rest only on procedural defects, not on any lack of substantive eligibility.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was denied Modvat credit merely for non-compliance with Rule 7(1)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and for defects in the delivery notes, despite the Board circular and the exemption-based position on duty liability.

Analysis: The Tribunal's view was supported by the Board's Circular No. 441/7/99-CX. dated 23-02-1999, which clarifies that mere departure from procedure cannot by itself justify rejection of Modvat credit when the record shows duty payment on inputs and their use in manufacture of excisable goods. The underlying duty liability was also treated as exempted by virtue of the notification, and the denial of credit rested only on procedural non-compliance and the form of the delivery notes.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeals were held to be without merit and dismissed.

---