Modvat credit cannot be denied for delayed invoice receipt when inputs were received and matched duty-paid documents existed.

Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the duty-paying invoice did not accompany the inputs at the time of receipt, if the inputs were in fact received and the invoice covered the same quantity of goods. Rule 57G(3) requires receipt of inputs under duty-paying documents, but it does not mandate simultaneous arrival of the goods and invoice. A time gap between receipt of the inputs and receipt or issue of the invoice is only a procedural irregularity and does not defeat the substantive entitlement to credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the duty-paying invoice did not accompany the inputs at the time of receipt, when the inputs had in fact been received and the invoice covered the same quantity of goods.

Analysis: Rule 57G(3) permits credit when inputs are received in the factory under cover of duty-paying documents, but it does not require simultaneous receipt of the inputs and the invoice. The existence of a time gap between receipt of goods and issuance or receipt of the invoice does not by itself defeat credit. Where receipt of inputs and matching duty-paid documentation are established, the defect is only procedural and does not amount to non-compliance with the substantive Modvat requirements. Support was drawn from the principle that a substantive fiscal benefit should not be denied for a mere procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the ground that the invoice did not accompany the inputs, and the lapse was only procedural.

Ratio Decidendi: Where receipt of inputs and the corresponding duty-paying documents are otherwise established, Modvat credit cannot be refused merely because the documents were not received simultaneously with the goods, since Rule 57G(3) does not impose such a condition.

---