Procedural defects in invoice details and staggered receipt of inputs cannot defeat Modvat credit where duty payment is undisputed.

Modvat credit could not be denied on technical objections where the duty-paying invoice was in the name of the registered office and the inputs were received in the factory in two instalments under the same invoice. The inputs were not disputed to be duty-paid or received under valid documents, and the alleged defect was only procedural. Minor irregularities in the manner of receipt, without dispute as to duty payment, receipt, and use in manufacture, were held insufficient to defeat the substantive entitlement to credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied where the duty-paying invoice stood in the name of the registered office, the goods were received in the factory premises in two instalments under the same invoice, and the objection raised was only procedural.

Analysis: The denial of credit rested on technical objections, namely that the invoice mentioned the registered office and that the consignment reached the factory in two spells. The inputs were not disputed to be duty-paid or received in the factory under the cover of duty-paying documents. The defect, if any, was procedural and did not affect the substantive conditions for availing credit. Minor irregularities in the manner of receipt of inputs, without dispute as to duty payment, receipt, and use in manufacture, were held insufficient to deprive the assessee of Modvat credit.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on these procedural grounds and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---