https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110738 Modvat credit depended on compliance with documentary requirements and reliable proof of receipt and use of duty-paid inputs. An invoice issued in the head office name instead of the factory did not defeat credit because the defect was treated as curable and the inputs were received and used in the factory. Credit based on original invoices said to have been lost in transit was rejected because the explanation was not credible. Credit on dealer invoices was also denied because the prescribed particulars required by the relevant notifications were missing. The subject matter therefore turned on curable procedural irregularity versus mandatory documentary compliance. en-us Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:23:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110738 Modvat credit depended on compliance with documentary requirements and reliable proof of receipt and use of duty-paid inputs. An invoice issued in the head office name instead of the factory did not defeat credit because the defect was treated as curable and the inputs were received and used in the factory. Credit based on original invoices said to have been lost in transit was rejected because the explanation was not credible. Credit on dealer invoices was also denied because the prescribed particulars required by the relevant notifications were missing. The subject matter therefore turned on curable procedural irregularity versus mandatory documentary compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110738