MODVAT credit cannot be denied for minor invoice defects when duty-paid inputs are received and used in manufacture.

MODVAT credit could not be denied merely because the invoice showed a minor discrepancy in the consignee's name or address when the inputs were duty-paid, received in the factory and used in manufacture. The record showed authenticated correction of the invoice, a certificate linking the supply to the assessee, and no dispute on actual receipt or use of the inputs. The amended Rule 57G, together with Notification No. 7/1999-CE (N.T.) and the Board's circular, treated such procedural lapses as non-fatal where substantive entitlement was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether MODVAT credit could be denied merely because the invoice did not exactly reflect the consignee's name or address, where the inputs were duty-paid, received in the factory and used in manufacture.

Analysis: The invoice discrepancy was confined to the consignee's address and branch-office naming, but the record showed authentication of the correction, a certificate linking the supply to the respondent, and no dispute that the inputs were duty-paid and actually received for use in the manufacture of final products. The amended Rule 57G of the Rules, together with Notification No. 7/1999-CE (N.T.) and the Board's circular, recognized that minor procedural lapses in duty-paying documents should not defeat credit where substantive requirements were satisfied.

Conclusion: MODVAT credit could not be denied on the basis of such minor documentary irregularities, and the appeal of the Revenue failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-paid inputs are received and used in manufacture, MODVAT credit cannot be denied for minor procedural defects in the invoice if the substantive entitlement is otherwise established.

---