https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98031 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoice copies were stamped or handwritten as "Duplicate for Transporter" instead of pre-printed, since the requirement to print them as original, duplicate or triplicate was only procedural. The statutory expression "marked" in Rule 52A and Notification No. 2/95 controlled the issue, and trade notice or circular language could not add a substantive condition. As duty-paid inputs had been received and no dispute existed on that fact, the objection was treated as a hypertechnical lapse and the credit was held admissible. en-us Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:34:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98031 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoice copies were stamped or handwritten as "Duplicate for Transporter" instead of pre-printed, since the requirement to print them as original, duplicate or triplicate was only procedural. The statutory expression "marked" in Rule 52A and Notification No. 2/95 controlled the issue, and trade notice or circular language could not add a substantive condition. As duty-paid inputs had been received and no dispute existed on that fact, the objection was treated as a hypertechnical lapse and the credit was held admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98031