https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106007 Modvat credit could not be denied for a technical defect in the invoice description where the format itself identified the copy meant for the transporter and that copy was duly ticked. The credit was rejected only because the invoices did not contain the exact words "duplicate for transporter", but the relevant copy was otherwise clearly marked and the inputs were not shown to have been diverted or left unused in manufacture. Substantial compliance with the invoicing requirement was therefore sufficient, and a minor deviation from the prescribed proforma did not justify denial of credit. en-us Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106007 Modvat credit could not be denied for a technical defect in the invoice description where the format itself identified the copy meant for the transporter and that copy was duly ticked. The credit was rejected only because the invoices did not contain the exact words "duplicate for transporter", but the relevant copy was otherwise clearly marked and the inputs were not shown to have been diverted or left unused in manufacture. Substantial compliance with the invoicing requirement was therefore sufficient, and a minor deviation from the prescribed proforma did not justify denial of credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106007