https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88509 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because duplicate invoice copies used minor variations such as "duplicate", "carrier copy", or a tick mark instead of the exact wording "duplicate for transporter". The declaration under Rule 57G had been filed, and the documents still functioned as duplicate copies for transporter purposes. The rule requirement was treated as substantially complied with, so these form-based deviations did not amount to a contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The denial of credit was therefore unjustified and the assessee succeeded. en-us Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:27:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88509 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because duplicate invoice copies used minor variations such as "duplicate", "carrier copy", or a tick mark instead of the exact wording "duplicate for transporter". The declaration under Rule 57G had been filed, and the documents still functioned as duplicate copies for transporter purposes. The rule requirement was treated as substantially complied with, so these form-based deviations did not amount to a contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The denial of credit was therefore unjustified and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88509