Modvat credit cannot be denied for a documentary defect when duty-paid imported goods and customs certification are established.

Modvat credit was upheld where imported goods were admittedly duty paid and customs officers confirmed import and clearance, even though the assessee produced an import application instead of the triplicate Bill of Entry. The prescribed document requirement under Rule 57G was treated as a procedural matter, not a substantive bar, because the Bill of Entry stationery was unavailable at the customs house and the Land Customs Station Inspector certified the import and asked that the application be treated as the Bill of Entry. On those facts, the documentary defect did not justify denial of credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the assessee produced an application for import instead of the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry, when the goods were admittedly duty paid and the customs authorities confirmed the import and clearance.

Analysis: The assessee had availed credit on turpentine oil imported from Nepal on the strength of an application for import. The departmental objection was that Rule 57G required the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry as the prescribed document. The record showed, however, that the Bill of Entry stationery was not available at the customs house, the Inspector at the Land Customs Station certified the import and requested that the application be treated as a Bill of Entry, and the duty on the goods had in fact been paid. In these circumstances, the appellate authority treated the documentary defect as a procedural irregularity and accepted the credit claim.

Conclusion: The credit could not be denied on this technical ground, and the departmental appeal failed.

---