ORDER
Shri Brahama Deva, Member (J)
1. The issue relates to Modvat Credit. Modvat Credit has been disallowed on the ground that the invoice was not pre-printed but marked with rubber stamp.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Shri Thomas George, JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that three invoices issued after 24.2.95 marked as ‘duplicate for transporter’ by rubber stamp and one invoice has not been preauthenticated.
4. I have carefully considered the matter. The Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that procedural lapse if any should not come in the way of denial of substantial justice. The Tribunal also held in number of cases that pre-printing of invoice is not a pre-condition for the period in question if other conditions were complied with.
5. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the case law, the matter is remanded to the concerned adjudicating authority to examine the matter afresh and to pass an order accordingly on providing an opportunity to the party. Thus this appeal is disposed off in the above terms.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)