Modvat credit cannot be denied for minor invoice defects where substantive duty payment and eligibility are otherwise verifiable.

Minor defects in an invoice do not by themselves disentitle Modvat credit where the document substantially satisfies the prescribed requirements and duty payment can be verified. An invoice remained acceptable despite mentioning an additional name apart from the consignee, because the defect did not affect substantive entitlement to credit. Computer-generated numbering was also treated as valid, so the absence of a pre-printed serial number did not invalidate the document. A clerical omission in separately stating duty particulars was cured by the supplier's later letter, and the duty amount shown on the invoice supported credit. On these principles, the objections to denial of Modvat credit were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be denied because the invoice mentioned one additional name apart from the consignee; (ii) Whether Modvat credit could be denied because the invoice number was computer generated and not pre-printed; (iii) Whether Modvat credit could be denied because the invoice did not separately indicate particulars of duty payment, though the duty amount was shown and supporting particulars were later furnished.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be denied because the invoice mentioned one additional name apart from the consignee.

Analysis: The invoice remained a valid duty-paying document despite the presence of another name in addition to the consignee. The objection did not affect the substantive entitlement to credit when the document otherwise satisfied the requirements for availing Modvat credit.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on this ground was not sustainable and was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit could be denied because the invoice number was computer generated and not pre-printed.

Analysis: Computer-generated serial numbering was treated as valid, and the absence of a pre-printed serial number did not invalidate the invoice. The document remained acceptable for credit purposes.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on this ground was not sustainable and was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Modvat credit could be denied because the invoice did not separately indicate particulars of duty payment, though the duty amount was shown and supporting particulars were later furnished.

Analysis: The omission was treated as clerical in nature. When the invoice was read with the supplier's subsequent letter furnishing the duty particulars, the requirements for Modvat credit were held to be satisfied.

Conclusion: The denial of credit on this ground was not sustainable and was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The objections raised for denial of Modvat credit failed on all grounds, and the assessee was entitled to the credit and consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Minor defects in an invoice, including an additional name, computer-generated numbering, or a clerical omission in duty particulars, do not by themselves disentitle Modvat credit when the document substantially satisfies the prescribed requirements and the duty payment can be verified.

---