https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90193 Modvat credit could not be denied for technical defects that did not affect substantive compliance. The absence of the words "duplicate for transporter" was not treated as a rigid requirement under Rule 52A, because the copy could still qualify if it was shown to be the transporter's copy, though the invoices required factual verification on that point. Other objections failed: the invoices contained the removal date and time, the notice did not identify any specific breach of Rule 57GG, the missing PLA debit entry number was not fatal where duty payment was verified, and the absence of invoice value in words had no supporting legal basis. The remaining dispute therefore depended only on verification of the transport copy. en-us Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:42:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90193 Modvat credit could not be denied for technical defects that did not affect substantive compliance. The absence of the words "duplicate for transporter" was not treated as a rigid requirement under Rule 52A, because the copy could still qualify if it was shown to be the transporter's copy, though the invoices required factual verification on that point. Other objections failed: the invoices contained the removal date and time, the notice did not identify any specific breach of Rule 57GG, the missing PLA debit entry number was not fatal where duty payment was verified, and the absence of invoice value in words had no supporting legal basis. The remaining dispute therefore depended only on verification of the transport copy. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90193