Modvat credit on original invoice survives loss of duplicate invoice where substantive conditions are met.

Rule 57G(2A) allowed Modvat credit on the original invoice where the duplicate invoice had been misplaced, provided the Assistant Collector was satisfied. The Trade Notice procedure was only a method of regulating that satisfaction and did not create a separate substantive condition. Because the credit was taken during the transition period after amendment and there was no finding that the goods were not received or that duty had not been paid, denial of credit solely for non-observance of the Trade Notice procedure was unsustainable. The substantive benefit under the rule could not be defeated by a procedural lapse, and credit was admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit was admissible on the strength of the original invoice when the duplicate invoice had been misplaced and the Trade Notice prescribed a procedure for satisfaction of the Assistant Collector.

Analysis: Rule 57G(2A) afforded a relaxation permitting credit on the original invoice where the duplicate invoice was lost, subject to the Assistant Collector being satisfied. The prescribed procedure in the Trade Notice was intended only to regulate that satisfaction. As the credit was taken during the transition period after the amendment, and there was no finding that the goods were not received or that duty had not been paid, denial of credit solely for non-observance of the Trade Notice procedure could not be sustained. The benefit under the rule was substantive and not liable to be defeated by a procedural lapse.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was admissible to the appellants and the denial by the lower authorities was unsustainable.

---