Substantial compliance for Modvat credit: minor invoice wording differences do not justify denial where transporter copies remain valid.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because duplicate invoice copies used minor variations such as "duplicate", "carrier copy", or a tick mark instead of the exact wording "duplicate for transporter". The declaration under Rule 57G had been filed, and the documents still functioned as duplicate copies for transporter purposes. The rule requirement was treated as substantially complied with, so these form-based deviations did not amount to a contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The denial of credit was therefore unjustified and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the duplicate invoice copies bore minor deviations from the prescribed pro forma.

Analysis: The declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had been filed, and the objection related only to the form of the duplicate copies of invoices. The variations consisted of the use of expressions such as "duplicate", "carrier copy", and a tick mark against the relevant entry, instead of the precise wording "duplicate for transporter". These differences did not alter the character of the documents as duplicate copies for transporter purposes. The requirement of the Rules was held to have been substantially met, and such minor departures were not sufficient to treat the appellant as having contravened the Rules.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was unjustified and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---