Modvat credit survives a missing duplicate invoice where the Revenue cannot prove the goods were not duty paid.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the dealer used an original invoice without the duplicate copy, where the Revenue produced no evidence that the goods were not duty paid. The only defect was procedural, and denial of credit in those circumstances would treat a documentation lapse as if it defeated a substantive entitlement. The doctrine of better title did not help the Revenue because the foundational fact of non-duty-paid goods was not established. The respondent was therefore entitled to the credit, and the challenge to that allowance failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied to the respondent merely because the dealer had taken credit on the strength of an original invoice without the duplicate copy, when there was no allegation that the goods were non-duty-paid.

Analysis: The only infirmity noticed was a procedural lapse on the part of the dealer in availing credit without the duplicate invoice. No investigation was made as to the fate of the duplicate copy, and no material was brought on record to show that the goods were not duty paid. In the absence of such evidence, denial of Modvat credit to the respondent would amount to refusing a substantive benefit for a procedural irregularity. The doctrine of better title could not assist the Revenue because the foundational fact of non-duty-paid character of the goods was not established.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to Modvat credit, and the Revenue's challenge to that allowance failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected after holding that a procedural defect in the dealer's documentation did not justify denial of Modvat credit to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural lapse in the chain of invoices cannot by itself defeat Modvat credit unless the Revenue establishes that the goods were not duty paid or that the credit was otherwise substantively ineligible.

---