Modvat credit depends on substance of the duplicate invoice, not the printed word "duplicate", if factual verification confirms it.

Modvat credit under Rule 57G could not be refused merely because the invoice received with the goods did not bear the word "duplicate". The governing test was whether the document was in substance the supplier's duplicate invoice, and the claim had to be assessed on factual verification rather than on the invoice's form alone. Rejection without first confirming the nature of the invoice with the supplier was premature. Relief was available where verification established that the document accompanying the goods was in fact the duplicate copy.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied where the goods were received under an invoice not marked "duplicate", but the document was asserted to be the duplicate copy issued by the supplier.

Analysis: The governing requirement under Rule 57G was receipt of goods under cover of a duplicate invoice. The fact that the supplier used its own invoice format did not by itself defeat the claim if the document furnished to the carrier was in substance the duplicate copy. The rejection of credit without first verifying the nature of the invoice with the supplier was held to be premature. The entitlement to credit therefore depended on factual verification that the invoice under which the goods were received was indeed the duplicate copy.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the invoice did not bear the word "duplicate" if verification established that it was in fact the duplicate copy; the assessee was entitled to relief on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A duplicate invoice requirement under the Modvat scheme is satisfied by the substance of the document and not by the mere presence of the word "duplicate", provided the factual position is verified.

---