Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because invoice particulars were entered by rubber stamp if originals verify the details.

Modvat credit could not be denied solely because trader's invoice particulars were entered partly by rubber stamp and partly by hand when the underlying duty, serial number, quantity and figures were verifiable from the original challan-cum-invoice. The objection went only to the mode of recording, not to the correctness of the particulars, and no dispute was raised as to the manufacturer's original invoice. Such documents were not invalid for Modvat purposes on that ground alone, but formal verification of the matching particulars was still required before credit could be granted. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of credit on verification of the original documents.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the trader's invoice particulars were entered by rubber stamp and the endorsed documents were treated as invalid, despite the details being verifiable from the original challan-cum-invoice.

Analysis: The documents were physically verified and the particulars of duty, serial number, figures and quantity were found to have been entered partly by rubber stamp and partly by hand. The objection was not to the correctness of the particulars but to the mode of recording them. Since the details were verifiable from the original challan-cum-invoice issued by the manufacturer and no dispute was raised regarding the correctness of that original invoice, the mere use of a rubber stamp did not by itself make the documents invalid for Modvat purposes. Formal verification of the matching particulars was still necessary before granting credit.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was not sustainable on the ground that the trader's invoice particulars were filled by rubber stamp. The appellants were entitled to reconsideration of credit on verification of the original documents, and the matter was remanded for that purpose.

---