Modvat credit cannot be denied for minor invoice defects when duty details are disclosed and no real inconsistency survives.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because dealer invoices and certificates did not contain every prescribed proforma detail where the assessee's documents were otherwise sufficient to cure the defect. The absence of assessable value in the dealer certificates was held unsupported by any legal provision, especially as the duty rate and duty amount were disclosed. An alleged invoice mismatch was explained by the certificate covering a larger quantity of inputs than purchased, leaving no surviving factual or legal inconsistency. The objections on incompleteness of particulars were not sustained, and the departmental findings were also accepted as not travelling beyond the show cause notice, so denial of credit was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the dealer invoices and certificates did not contain all particulars prescribed in the proforma, and whether the departmental findings travelled beyond the show cause notice.

Analysis: The documents produced by the assessee were found sufficient to cure any deficiency in the invoices. The absence of the assessable value in the dealer certificates was held to be unsupported by any legal provision, while the duty rate and duty amount were disclosed. The alleged mismatch in one invoice was explained by the fact that the certificate covered a larger quantity of inputs than what was purchased by the assessee, so no factual or legal inconsistency survived. The objections based on incompleteness of particulars were therefore not sustained, and the challenge that the findings exceeded the scope of the show cause notice also supported the assessee's case.

Conclusion: Denial of Modvat credit was unjustified and the assessee was entitled to relief.

---