Modvat credit cannot be denied for a clerical invoice address error when duty-paid goods and proper entitlement are shown.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices carried the assessee's name with a Delhi c/o address instead of the Jammu factory address where the goods were used. The invoices were in the respondent's name, the address entry was explained as a consignor's clerical mistake, the goods were duty paid, and credit had been taken only once. On those facts, the address discrepancy did not show any breach justifying denial of credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, and entitlement to Modvat credit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the invoices bore the respondent's name with a Delhi c/o address instead of the Jammu factory address, despite the goods being duty paid and the respondent offering an explanation for the address entry.

Analysis: The invoices remained in the name of the respondent, and the difference in the address was explained as a mistake by the consignor's staff. The goods were found to be duly duty paid, and the credit had been taken only once. On these facts, the alleged address defect did not establish a violation warranting denial of Modvat credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was not justified, and the assessee's entitlement to credit was upheld.

---