Modvat credit cannot be denied for a technical registration defect when invoices otherwise satisfy prescribed particulars.

An assessee registered for issuing Modvat invoices under the Central Excise Rules was entitled to credit where the invoices otherwise contained the particulars required by Notification No. 15/94. The omission of the Area Office address from the Registration Certificate was only a technical defect, because the dealer was duly registered and authorised to issue invoices for the relevant city. That procedural irregularity could not defeat the substantive benefit of Modvat credit, and the denial of credit was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the dealer's Registration Certificate did not mention the address of the Area Office, when the dealer was registered under the relevant excise rules and the invoices otherwise contained the required particulars.

Analysis: The dealer stood registered for issuing invoices for the purpose of Modvat credit under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. The Registration was in the name of the Area Office and the invoices were issued within the city for which that office was authorised to deal in the goods. The omission of the Area Office address in the Registration Certificate was held to be only a technical defect and not a ground to deny the substantive benefit of credit. It was also found that the invoices contained the particulars required under Notification No. 15/94 and the objection based on the invoicing requirements was not sustainable.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was admissible and the denial of credit was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---