Modvat credit cannot be denied for technical invoice defects when duty payment and receipt of inputs are proved.

Modvat credit could not be denied on a merely technical objection to invoice particulars where duty payment was established by reliable documentary evidence and the inputs were received and used in manufacture. The Court accepted the supplier's certificate and the factual finding that the original invoices were mutilated due to a computer problem, and held that the alleged omission in invoice particulars did not make the documents unreliable. It also held that refusal of credit could not rest on the ground that the extra copy of the invoice was not a prescribed document when substantive entitlement was otherwise proved. No referable question of law arose, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be denied for alleged non-compliance with the particulars required in the invoices under the applicable notifications. (ii) Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the extra copy of the invoice was not a prescribed document, despite proof of duty payment and receipt of inputs.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be denied for alleged non-compliance with the particulars required in the invoices under the applicable notifications.

Analysis: The petition sought a reference under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but the Court found that the certificate issued by the supplier established payment of duty against the invoices and explained the mutilation of the original invoices due to a computer problem. The Tribunal had relied on that certificate and the factual position that the inputs had been received and used in manufacture. No material showed that the invoices were unreliable merely because of the alleged omission in particulars.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the extra copy of the invoice was not a prescribed document, despite proof of duty payment and receipt of inputs.

Analysis: The Court accepted the Tribunal's view that the manufacturer's stamp on the invoices was a genuine document and was sufficient to show that duty had already been paid. Since receipt and use of the inputs were not disputed, the insistence on the original endorsed invoice was not treated as decisive for denying credit in the facts of the case. The Court therefore found no error in the Tribunal's acceptance of the credit claim.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty payment and receipt and use of inputs are established by reliable documentary evidence, Modvat credit cannot be denied on a purely technical objection to the form of the invoice in the absence of any dispute as to the substantive entitlement.

---