Substantial compliance under excise invoice rules allows franking-machine serial numbers and protects Modvat credit.

Invoices bearing serial numbers stamped by a franking machine can satisfy Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the numbering requirement is meant to ensure sequential identification and prevent misuse, not to insist on printing by a press in every case. Where duty payment, description of goods, assessable value and manufacturer identity are otherwise established, Rule 57G and the amended Rule 57G(11) support substantial compliance, so Modvat credit should not be denied for this non-substantive defect alone. The preferred view treats the invoice as valid if the serial number remains continuous, verifiable and serves the rule's purpose.

---

---

Issues: Whether invoices bearing serial numbers stamped by a franking machine, instead of being printed in a printing press, satisfy the requirement of Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for availment of Modvat credit.

Analysis: Rule 52A(6) requires each invoice to bear a printed serial number for the financial year, while Rule 57G governs availment of Modvat credit on prescribed documents. The amended Rule 57G(11) and the departmental circular reflect that credit should not be denied for non-substantive defects where duty payment, description of goods, assessable value and the identity of the manufacturer are otherwise established. The invoice-numbering requirement is intended to ensure continuity and prevent misuse, and that object is met where the serial number is generated by stamping from a franking machine or typed, provided the numbering remains sequential and verifiable. The view supporting substantial compliance was preferred over the stricter line of authorities treating the defect as fatal.

Conclusion: Serial numbers stamped by a franking machine are sufficient compliance with Rule 52A(6), and Modvat credit cannot be denied on that ground alone.

---