Mandatory invoice particulars for Modvat credit must be strictly met; handwritten substitutes cannot cure non-compliance.

Modvat credit under Rule 57G read with Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was denied because the invoices did not contain the pre-printed particulars mandated by Notification No. 23/95-C.E. (N.T.). The High Court treated the invoice requirements as clear and mandatory, meant to prevent misuse through duplicate or false invoicing, and held that handwritten substitutions could not cure the defect. The contrary view that the lapse was merely procedural was rejected, and credit was held inadmissible on the invoices in question.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be allowed on invoices that did not satisfy the pre-printed particulars required by Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Notification No. 23/95-C.E. (N.T.) dated 30-5-1995.

Analysis: Rule 57GG and the notification issued under it required specified particulars to be incorporated in the invoice, including certain particulars to be pre-printed. The requirement was held to be clear and unambiguous and designed to prevent misuse of credit by duplicate or false invoicing. The Court held that the mandatory statutory conditions for availing Modvat credit under Rule 57G read with Rule 57GG had to be complied with in letter and spirit, and particulars required to be pre-printed could not be substituted by handwriting. The contrary view treating the lapse as merely procedural was rejected.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was not admissible on the invoices in question, and the assessee's claim failed.

---