Modvat credit and invoice defects: rubber-stamped markings, inputs classification, and handwritten serial numbers do not automatically bar credit.

Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because invoices for the transporter were marked by rubber stamp rather than pre-printed, since Rule 57GG only required the invoice to be marked for the relevant recipient. Wires and cables used in the manufacturing process qualify as inputs and are eligible for credit. Credit on invoices bearing handwritten serial numbers depends on verification that the goods were duty-paid, received and used in or in relation to manufacture, and that there is no risk of misuse; where those conditions are satisfied, credit should be allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be denied because invoices intended for the transporter were marked by rubber stamp instead of being pre-printed; (ii) Whether wires and cables qualified as inputs for Modvat credit; (iii) Whether credit could be denied on invoices bearing handwritten serial numbers.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be denied because invoices intended for the transporter were marked by rubber stamp instead of being pre-printed.

Analysis: Sub-rule 4A of Rule 57GG required the invoice to be marked for the relevant recipient, and the rule did not insist that such marking must be pre-printed. Marking the invoices by rubber stamp satisfied the requirement.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on this ground, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether wires and cables qualified as inputs for Modvat credit.

Analysis: Applying the governing test for inputs, wires and cables used in the manufacturing process were eligible to be treated as inputs.

Conclusion: Credit was admissible on wires and cables, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether credit could be denied on invoices bearing handwritten serial numbers.

Analysis: Credit could not be denied if the proper officer was satisfied that the goods were duty-paid, received and used in or in relation to manufacture, and that there was no chance of misuse of the invoice. The matter therefore required verification of these conditions by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded for verification, with credit to be allowed if the stated conditions were established.

Final Conclusion: The denial of credit on the first two grounds was set aside, while the claim based on handwritten serial-number invoices was sent back for fresh examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural irregularities in invoices do not justify denial of Modvat credit where the substantive statutory requirements are met and there is no risk of misuse.

---