https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99645 Modvat credit was held admissible where the invoice copy used as the duplicate for transporters copy was manually marked instead of pre-printed, because the governing provisions required clear identification of the copy but did not require the words to be printed in advance. Rule 52A(6) was read as requiring serial numbering, not a pre-printed description of the copy. As duty payment, receipt of inputs, and their use in manufacture were undisputed, the defect was treated as procedural. The matter was remanded only for verification of the particulars in the duplicate for transporters copy. en-us Mon, 23 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:59:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99645 Modvat credit was held admissible where the invoice copy used as the duplicate for transporters copy was manually marked instead of pre-printed, because the governing provisions required clear identification of the copy but did not require the words to be printed in advance. Rule 52A(6) was read as requiring serial numbering, not a pre-printed description of the copy. As duty payment, receipt of inputs, and their use in manufacture were undisputed, the defect was treated as procedural. The matter was remanded only for verification of the particulars in the duplicate for transporters copy. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99645