Modvat credit cannot be denied for a mere invoice format defect when duty-paid status is otherwise verifiable.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the invoices bore stamped words instead of pre-printed particulars, where the duty-paid character of the goods was otherwise verifiable. A departmental circular had directed field formations to allow credit on such verification under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the article treats substantive entitlement as prevailing over a purely formal invoice defect. The practical effect is that technical irregularities in invoice form do not, by themselves, justify rejection of Modvat credit when the underlying duty-paid status is established.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices were stamped instead of pre-printed, and whether the assessee was entitled to credit on verification of the duty-paid character of the goods.

Analysis: The denial of credit rested only on a formal defect in the invoices, namely that the relevant words were stamped and not pre-printed. A departmental circular had directed field formations to allow Modvat credit after verifying the duty-paid character of the goods under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The reasoning also treated substantive entitlement as prevailing over a mere technical objection.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the stated technical ground, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

Final Conclusion: The demand based on rejection of Modvat credit was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive Modvat benefit cannot be denied merely for a technical defect in the form of invoices where the duty-paid character of the goods is otherwise verifiable.

---