https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109806 Modvat credit was held inadmissible because the invoices did not bear the prescribed mark "duplicate for transporter", and the concurrent findings below upheld that defect. The earlier Tribunal order had dealt only with the colour of the invoices and had not addressed this live compliance issue, so the omission constituted a patent error apparent from the record. Rectification was therefore justified, and the appeal was amended to reject the claim for Modvat credit. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:08:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109806 Modvat credit was held inadmissible because the invoices did not bear the prescribed mark "duplicate for transporter", and the concurrent findings below upheld that defect. The earlier Tribunal order had dealt only with the colour of the invoices and had not addressed this live compliance issue, so the omission constituted a patent error apparent from the record. Rectification was therefore justified, and the appeal was amended to reject the claim for Modvat credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109806