Modvat documentation for returned goods was treated as substantive, with inadequate invoices insufficient outside the credit regime.

Returned goods supported only by the original sale invoice did not satisfy Modvat documentation where the buyers were outside the Modvat regime. The Tribunal treated the prescribed document requirement as substantive, because without a proper Modvat document the authorities could not verify or control the movement of returned goods. It also distinguished the cited precedents on the basis that they arose on different facts and did not address the relevant Modvat requirements. On that footing, the proposed questions were treated as substantial questions of law fit for reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to Modvat credit on rejected goods returned by non-Modvat and non-manufacturer customers, and whether the denial of credit on the ground that refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was the proper course gave rise to questions of law fit for reference.

Analysis: The return of goods under the original sale invoice did not satisfy the prescribed Modvat documentation when the buyers were outside the Modvat regime. The Tribunal treated the document requirement as substantive, not merely procedural, and held that the absence of a proper Modvat document prevented verification and control over the returned goods. It further distinguished the cited precedents on the footing that they arose on different facts and did not deal with the relevant Modvat requirements.

Conclusion: The questions proposed by the applicants were held to be substantial questions of law arising for reference, and the applicants succeeded in obtaining reference on those questions.

---