https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99958 Modvat credit could not be denied for technical defects in invoices where the duplicate copy carried a rubber-stamp marking instead of a pre-printed endorsement, because no specific mode of marking was prescribed and the substantive conditions were met. Credit was also allowable where invoices were issued in the name of the head office, since that defect was treated as rectifiable and Board guidance supported credit when the consignment was received in the factory and the invoice was duly endorsed. Production of the invoices before the central excise authorities and defacement of the documents further supported receipt and use of the inputs in the factory. en-us Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:30:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99958 Modvat credit could not be denied for technical defects in invoices where the duplicate copy carried a rubber-stamp marking instead of a pre-printed endorsement, because no specific mode of marking was prescribed and the substantive conditions were met. Credit was also allowable where invoices were issued in the name of the head office, since that defect was treated as rectifiable and Board guidance supported credit when the consignment was received in the factory and the invoice was duly endorsed. Production of the invoices before the central excise authorities and defacement of the documents further supported receipt and use of the inputs in the factory. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99958