Modvat credit cannot be denied for invoice defects when receipt and use of duty-paid inputs are established.

Modvat credit cannot be denied solely for procedural defects in duty-paying invoices, such as the invoices not being in the appellant's name or not being the prescribed duplicate copy, where receipt and use of the inputs are undisputed. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that substantive compliance prevails over technical lapses when the duty-paid inputs are co-related to the final product and the scheme's essential conditions are satisfied. On that basis, documentary irregularities in the consignee details did not defeat entitlement to credit, and the denial was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied solely because the duty-paying invoices were not in the appellant's name and were not the duplicate copy prescribed under the rules, despite receipt and use of the inputs being undisputed.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled principle that Modvat credit is not to be denied for mere procedural irregularities where the substantive conditions of the scheme are satisfied. It noted that the inputs were admittedly received by the appellant and used in the manufacture of the final product, and relied on prior decisions holding that errors in the name or address of the consignee, or similar documentary defects, are technical lapses that do not defeat entitlement when co-relation of goods is established.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere procedural defect in the duty-paying documents, including non-mention of the manufacturer's name, does not disentitle Modvat credit where receipt of duty-paid inputs and their use in manufacture are established.

---