https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90218 Rule 52A(3)(ii) was treated as a mandatory safeguard in the Modvat scheme because duty-paying invoices had to be clearly distinguishable as original and duplicate copies. Where every copy bore identical legends such as original, duplicate and triplicate without proper deletion of the extra markings, the resulting ambiguity was held to be a substantive non-compliance, not a mere technical lapse. The defect was considered capable of undermining revenue control and allowing duplication of credit, so Modvat credit could be denied on that basis. en-us Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:38:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90218 Rule 52A(3)(ii) was treated as a mandatory safeguard in the Modvat scheme because duty-paying invoices had to be clearly distinguishable as original and duplicate copies. Where every copy bore identical legends such as original, duplicate and triplicate without proper deletion of the extra markings, the resulting ambiguity was held to be a substantive non-compliance, not a mere technical lapse. The defect was considered capable of undermining revenue control and allowing duplication of credit, so Modvat credit could be denied on that basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90218