Reply from ha_tran on May 9 at 6:51 PM Hi Matt,
The setting you have done will only be applied if one invoice is maintained via LIV process (MIRO transaction). In your Scenario 2.2, since both FI invoice documents were maintained in FV60 transaction, no double invoice check is carried out. Hence, if this is a common process that FI invoices are maintained in FV60 transaction, then you should define/customize the validation rule in FI for due check.
Cheers,
HT
| | | ---------------Original Message---------------
From: chuamatt
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:55 AM
Subject: Checking of Duplicate Invoice Posted in SAP
Hi,
We are testing the system if it can process duplicate invoice. However, we encountered a problem because after configuration and testing, we were able to process two invoices in a scenario (Please see scenario 2 no. 2). We configured our Invoice Verification in such a way that the system checks if there is a duplicate invoice thru the path (IMG, Materials Management, Logistics Invoice Verification, Incoming Invoice, Set check for Duplicate Invoices). From the Vendor Master, we also ticked the "Check double invoice" so that it will check the duplicate invoices. When we did the testing, here are the results:
Scenario 1
1. We processed an invoice verification in FI using FV60 first with Sales Invoice (SI) no. 70. When we processed it in MIRO, the system did not accept because it is already a duplicate. The system gave a reference FI doc number of the processed PO where the SI No. 70 was used… Configuration is worked well.
Scenario 2
1. When we tried to invoice twice in MIRO using two same invoices, SI No. 71, system rejected the second invoice and gave an error saying that the SI number entered is already processed… Configuration worked well.
2. We processed invoicing in FI using FV60 using SI No. 71. The system processed it and did not prompt as a duplicate SI. The system allowed it to be processed… Configuration did not work well.
The system should have prompted that the invoice is already processed in Scenario 2 no. 2. Does anybody have an idea or have experienced this? Maybe we missed something in the configuration?
Please advise.
Thanks,
Matt |
| Reply to this email to post your response. __.____._ | In the Spotlight Become a blogger at Toolbox.com and share your expertise with the community. Start today.   _.____.__ |
