Modvat credit cannot be denied for invoice form alone when duty-paid goods are received and traceable to the consignee.

Modvat credit was held admissible where duty-paid inputs were received and accounted for by the assessee, even though the invoices named the assessee as consignee and not as buyer. The Tribunal treated the consignee entry as sufficient to link the goods with the assessee and found that the duty-paying documents substantially complied with the requirement. Credit could not be denied on a purely technical objection to invoice form when receipt of the goods was traceable and the documents identified the ultimate consignee. The ruling confirms that substantive entitlement to credit prevails over a formal defect in the description of the recipient on the invoice.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices showed the assessee as consignee and not as buyer, where the goods were received and accounted for by the assessee.

Analysis: The denial rested only on the absence of the assessee's name as buyer in the invoices. The invoices nevertheless bore the assessee's name as consignee, which established the link between the goods and the assessee. The Tribunal treated this as sufficient compliance with the requirement of duty-paying documents and held that credit cannot be denied on such a technical ground when receipt of goods is duly traceable and the documents connect the goods to the ultimate consignee.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was admissible and the objection based solely on the form of the invoice was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-paid inputs are received by the assessee and the documents identify the assessee as consignee, Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the assessee is not shown as the buyer on the invoice.

---