Modvat credit cannot be denied for technical invoice defects where inputs were received and used in the factory.

Modvat credit could not be denied for technical defects in invoices where the duplicate copy carried a rubber-stamp marking instead of a pre-printed endorsement, because no specific mode of marking was prescribed and the substantive conditions were met. Credit was also allowable where invoices were issued in the name of the head office, since that defect was treated as rectifiable and Board guidance supported credit when the consignment was received in the factory and the invoice was duly endorsed. Production of the invoices before the central excise authorities and defacement of the documents further supported receipt and use of the inputs in the factory.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the grounds that the duplicate invoices bore a rubber-stamp marking instead of being pre-printed and that the invoices were issued in the name of the head office rather than the factory.

Analysis: The duplicate copy of the invoice was marked by rubber stamp as "duplicate for transporter", which satisfied the requirement of the relevant rules, since no particular mode of marking was prescribed. The substantive credit could not be refused on such a technical ground, especially when there was no allegation or finding that the inputs were not received or not used. As to invoices in the name of the head office, the defect was treated as rectifiable, and the Board circular supported allowance of credit where the consignment was received in the factory and the invoice was duly endorsed. The invoices had been produced before the jurisdictional central excise authorities and defaced, supporting receipt of the inputs in the factory.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on either ground, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

---