Modvat credit cannot be denied for non-preprinted invoice markings when the requirement is only procedural.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoice copies were stamped or handwritten as "Duplicate for Transporter" instead of pre-printed, since the requirement to print them as original, duplicate or triplicate was only procedural. The statutory expression "marked" in Rule 52A and Notification No. 2/95 controlled the issue, and trade notice or circular language could not add a substantive condition. As duty-paid inputs had been received and no dispute existed on that fact, the objection was treated as a hypertechnical lapse and the credit was held admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the invoice copies were stamped or handwritten as "Duplicate for Transporter" instead of being pre-printed, and whether the printing requirement was substantive or only procedural.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the meaning of "marked" in Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Notification No. 2/95 dated 19-1-1995. The printing requirement relied upon from the trade notice and circular could not override the statutory language, and the assessee had not disputed receipt of duty-paid inputs. The Court found the requirement to print the invoice copies as original, duplicate or triplicate to be only a procedural formality. In view of the consistent line of authority that Modvat credit, being a substantial benefit, should not be denied on hypertechnical procedural lapses, the departmental objection was rejected.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was rightly held admissible, and denial on the ground that the copies were not pre-printed was not justified.

---