https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90368 Modvat credit depended on compliance with invoice-form requirements and the nature of the defect. Credit was denied on the post-notification invoice because a quadruplicate copy was altered by hand to show "duplicate" and the use of that copy was not satisfactorily explained. Credit was allowed on the pre-notification invoice because the marking requirement had not yet been introduced, so absence of the word "duplicate" did not invalidate it. Credit was also allowed where the invoice number was handwritten, as that was treated as a mere clerical irregularity and the receipt of goods was not in dispute. en-us Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:28:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90368 Modvat credit depended on compliance with invoice-form requirements and the nature of the defect. Credit was denied on the post-notification invoice because a quadruplicate copy was altered by hand to show "duplicate" and the use of that copy was not satisfactorily explained. Credit was allowed on the pre-notification invoice because the marking requirement had not yet been introduced, so absence of the word "duplicate" did not invalidate it. Credit was also allowed where the invoice number was handwritten, as that was treated as a mere clerical irregularity and the receipt of goods was not in dispute. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90368