Modvat credit cannot be denied for rubber-stamped dealer invoices where marking requirements are otherwise satisfied.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because a first stage dealer's invoice carried a rubber-stamped marking instead of a pre-printed one. Rule 57GG(5)(b) required the invoice to be marked as that of a first stage or second stage dealer, and rubber stamping satisfied that requirement. The Board circular also accepted use of existing stationery with rubber stamping or typewriting up to the relevant cut-off date. As the duty-paid nature of the inputs and their receipt were not disputed, denial of credit was unjustified and relief was due to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the first stage dealer's invoices were rubber-stamped with the words "first stage dealer" instead of being pre-printed.

Analysis: The requirement under Rule 57GG(5)(b) was only that the invoice be marked as that of a first stage dealer or second stage dealer. Marking was not the same as pre-printing, and rubber stamping satisfied the requirement. The Board circular also recognized use of existing stationery with rubber stamping or typewriting up to a cut-off date, and the inputs were not in dispute as duty paid and received.

Conclusion: Denial of Modvat credit was not justified, and the assessee was entitled to relief.

---