Modvat credit on imported inputs cannot be denied for a missing Customs endorsement when receipt and transaction details are otherwise established.

Modvat credit on imported inputs was treated as available where the High Sea Sale agreement, Bill of Lading and Bill of Entry matched in all material particulars, and the full consignment was received in the importer's factory. The absence of Customs endorsement on the Bill of Entry, and a discrepancy in the Bill of Lading number, were regarded as procedural rather than substantive defects. On that basis, the endorsed Bill of Entry was accepted as a valid duty paying document and denial of credit was found unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit on imported inputs could be denied on the ground that the Bill of Entry lacked the Customs endorsement, when the goods were covered by a High Sea Sale agreement and the other particulars tallied.

Analysis: The High Sea Sale agreement and the Bill of Lading were found to match in all material particulars, and the discrepancy in the Bill of Lading number was held to be immaterial. The Tribunal also noted that the importer had endorsed the reverse of the Bill of Entry to show that the full quantity covered by it had been issued to the appellant, and there was no dispute that the entire consignment had been received in the appellant's factory. In these circumstances, absence of the Customs endorsement on the Bill of Entry was treated as a procedural lapse and not a substantive defect.

Conclusion: The endorsed Bill of Entry was accepted as a valid duty paying document for Modvat credit, and denial of credit was not justified.

Ratio Decidendi: A missing Customs endorsement on a Bill of Entry does not invalidate Modvat credit where the transaction and receipt of the entire consignment are otherwise established and the defect is merely procedural.

---