https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93834 Modvat credit under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should not be denied for mere invoice-format defects where the substantive conditions are met. Handwritten or typewritten invoice serial numbers, instead of printed numbers, were treated as a procedural irregularity because the invoices still evidenced duty payment and the receipt and use of inputs. Likewise, the words identifying the transporter copy or duplicate, if written by hand or applied by rubber stamp rather than printed, were held to satisfy the marking requirement in substance. The commentary reflects the principle of substantial compliance: procedural lapses that do not affect proof of duty payment or input use do not defeat credit entitlement. en-us Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:18:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93834 Modvat credit under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should not be denied for mere invoice-format defects where the substantive conditions are met. Handwritten or typewritten invoice serial numbers, instead of printed numbers, were treated as a procedural irregularity because the invoices still evidenced duty payment and the receipt and use of inputs. Likewise, the words identifying the transporter copy or duplicate, if written by hand or applied by rubber stamp rather than printed, were held to satisfy the marking requirement in substance. The commentary reflects the principle of substantial compliance: procedural lapses that do not affect proof of duty payment or input use do not defeat credit entitlement. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93834