https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120083 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices lacked specific markings for original, duplicate, consignee or transporter copies where the inputs were admittedly received, consumed and duty paid. The invoice endorsement stated that the customer or transporter copy was to be used for claiming credit under Rule 57G, and the supporting trade notice also recognised that copy for Modvat purposes. The absence of the particular copy designation was treated as a documentary irregularity, not a substantive defect, so denial of credit on that ground was unsustainable and the credit was allowed. en-us Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:24:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120083 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because invoices lacked specific markings for original, duplicate, consignee or transporter copies where the inputs were admittedly received, consumed and duty paid. The invoice endorsement stated that the customer or transporter copy was to be used for claiming credit under Rule 57G, and the supporting trade notice also recognised that copy for Modvat purposes. The absence of the particular copy designation was treated as a documentary irregularity, not a substantive defect, so denial of credit on that ground was unsustainable and the credit was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120083