https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89768 Modvat credit could not be denied where the invoice copy was marked "Carrier Copy" instead of "Duplicate for Transporter" under Rule 52A, because both descriptions were treated as substantively synonymous and meant the copy for transport or carriage of goods to the consignee. The objection was held to be hypertechnical, particularly since there was no dispute that the original invoice copies were available with the assessee. Credit was therefore allowed with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:46:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89768 Modvat credit could not be denied where the invoice copy was marked "Carrier Copy" instead of "Duplicate for Transporter" under Rule 52A, because both descriptions were treated as substantively synonymous and meant the copy for transport or carriage of goods to the consignee. The objection was held to be hypertechnical, particularly since there was no dispute that the original invoice copies were available with the assessee. Credit was therefore allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89768