Modvat credit requires original duty documents, but a dealer's missing godown alone cannot invalidate otherwise duty-related invoices.

Modvat credit depended on compliance with the prescribed documentary conditions and proof that inputs were received and duty had been paid. Credit on a xerox copy of an invoice was not sustainable on the material available because the original duty-paying document was required, subject only to limited exceptions where loss of the duplicate copy was proved and supporting evidence was produced. By contrast, a later procedural requirement that the dealer maintain a godown could not, by itself, invalidate invoices already issued for Modvat purposes. The actual receipt, transport and use of the goods still had to be verified through documentary proof.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be taken on a xerox copy of invoice without producing the original duty paying document. (ii) Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the dealer issuing the invoices did not have his own godown.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be taken on a xerox copy of invoice without producing the original duty paying document.

Analysis: Credit under Rule 57G(6) was linked to the original invoice, and use of the original document was treated as an exceptional situation only where the duplicate copy had been lost in transit, subject to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner that the inputs were received and duty had been paid. The circulars also required written permission and supporting documentary evidence. In the absence of evidence showing intimation of loss and supporting transport and payment documents, the availment of credit on a xerox copy could not be sustained, though the appellant was permitted to produce proof before the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The credit on the xerox copy was not allowable on the material then available and was liable to reversal unless the required documentary proof was produced.

Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the dealer issuing the invoices did not have his own godown.

Analysis: The requirement of the dealer having a godown was introduced by a later trade notice and did not affect the duty paying character of the goods. Any lapse in complying with that procedural requirement was attributable to the dealer and could not, by itself, invalidate invoices already issued for Modvat purposes. However, the actual receipt, transport and utilisation of the goods still had to be verified through documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The absence of the dealer's godown was not, by itself, a valid ground to deny Modvat credit on the invoices.

Final Conclusion: The matter was disposed of with one claim failing for want of proof and the other not liable to rejection on the stated procedural ground, leaving factual verification of supporting documents open before the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit depends on compliance with the prescribed documentary conditions and proof of receipt and duty-paid character of inputs, but a later procedural requirement affecting only the dealer cannot invalidate otherwise duty-related invoices.

---