Procedural defect in duty-paid documents cannot defeat Modvat credit when receipt and use of inputs are proved.

A clerical error in duty-paid documents does not defeat Modvat credit or refund where the inputs were actually received and consumed in the factory and there is no dispute about use or mala fides. The consignee place was wrongly stated, but the record established receipt at the correct unit and utilisation in manufacture, making the defect purely procedural. On that basis, denial of credit/refund was unjustified and the assessee's claim was admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit/refund was admissible when the duty-paid documents mentioned the wrong consignee place, although the inputs were actually received and consumed in the appellant's factory and the error was only procedural.

Analysis: The documents showed a mistaken description of the consignee as Dholka instead of Kadi, but the record indicated that the inputs were in fact received at Kadi and used in manufacture. The defect was therefore a clerical or procedural lapse and not a substantive irregularity affecting the entitlement, particularly when the units were under common ownership and there was no dispute about receipt, use, or any mala fide.

Conclusion: The denial of credit/refund was not justified, and the claim was admissible in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere procedural defect in duty-paid documents does not defeat Modvat credit or refund where receipt and utilisation of inputs are established and there is no allegation of mala fides.

---