Modvat credit cannot be denied for a harmless invoice description difference when the transport copy is substantively the same.

Modvat credit could not be denied where the invoice copy was marked "Carrier Copy" instead of "Duplicate for Transporter" under Rule 52A, because both descriptions were treated as substantively synonymous and meant the copy for transport or carriage of goods to the consignee. The objection was held to be hypertechnical, particularly since there was no dispute that the original invoice copies were available with the assessee. Credit was therefore allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the invoice copy was described as "Carrier Copy" instead of "Duplicate for Transporter" under Rule 52A.

Analysis: The description on the invoice copy was held to be synonymous in substance, both referring to the copy meant for the transporter or carrier for delivery of goods to the consignee. The objection raised by the Revenue was treated as hypertechnical, especially when no dispute existed about the availability of the original invoice copies with the appellant.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on this technical ground, and the appellant was entitled to consequential relief.

---