Modvat credit on handwritten transporters copy upheld as a procedural defect, with remand for verification of particulars.

Modvat credit was held admissible where the invoice copy used as the duplicate for transporters copy was manually marked instead of pre-printed, because the governing provisions required clear identification of the copy but did not require the words to be printed in advance. Rule 52A(6) was read as requiring serial numbering, not a pre-printed description of the copy. As duty payment, receipt of inputs, and their use in manufacture were undisputed, the defect was treated as procedural. The matter was remanded only for verification of the particulars in the duplicate for transporters copy.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit was admissible on an invoice copy manually marked as the duplicate for transporters copy instead of being pre-printed as such.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the manufacturer's affidavit explained that the printed batch of invoices did not contain a duplicate for transporters copy and that the extra copy was converted by hand for that purpose. It held that the relevant Modvat provisions required invoices to be clearly marked as original or duplicate for transporters, but did not insist that those words be pre-printed. Rule 52A(6) was read as requiring serial numbering, not pre-printing of the copy description. The Tribunal also found no dispute about duty payment, receipt of the inputs, or their use in the manufacture of final products, and treated the defect as a procedural lapse. The Tribunal further observed that after the 1994 invoice system, endorsement-related misuse concerns were not present in the same way as with gate passes.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the duplicate for transporters copy was handwritten; the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for verification of the particulars in the duplicate for transporters copy.

---