Modvat credit requires a consignee-specific invoice; duty payment alone is not enough to claim credit.

Modvat credit was available only where inputs were received under a statutory invoice issued to the consignee claiming credit. An invoice made out to a different person did not satisfy Rule 57G(2) read with Rule 52A, because the consignee-specific invoice was a substantive condition of the scheme, not a dispensable procedural formality. Mere proof that duty had been paid on the inputs was insufficient to support credit, and the earlier proforma credit approach under Rule 56A did not govern this scheme. Credit was therefore not admissible on an invoice issued in another person's name.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be taken on an invoice issued in the name of a person other than the consignee who received and used the inputs.

Analysis: Rule 57G(2) required receipt of inputs under cover of an invoice issued under Rule 52A. The invoice contemplated by the rules had to contain the name of the consignee and was specific to that consignee. An invoice issued to another person changed its character for the purposes of Modvat credit. The Tribunal distinguished the proforma credit position under Rule 56A, where the earlier decision relied upon did not control the present scheme. The Court held that mere proof of duty payment was insufficient and that the invoice requirement was not a mere peripheral procedural formality.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was not admissible to the respondent on an invoice issued to another person; the denial of credit was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Modvat scheme, credit can be taken only when the statutory invoice requirement is satisfied by the consignee claiming credit, and a consignee-specific invoice is a substantive condition, not a dispensable procedural formality.

---