Modvat credit on endorsed invoices allowed where manufacturer's invoice names the consignee or end user and required particulars are present.

Credit under Rule 57A could not be denied solely because a manufacturer's invoice was endorsed through a dealer where the invoice otherwise contained the prescribed particulars and identified the claimant as the consignee or end user. The applicable Board Circular on transit sales treated such an invoice as a valid document for availing credit. On these facts, the intermediary endorsement did not defeat admissibility, and credit was held to be allowable.

---

---

Issues: Whether credit under Rule 57A could be denied merely because the manufacturer's invoice was endorsed through a dealer, when the invoice showed the appellant as the consignee/end user.

Analysis: Credit had been denied on the ground that the manufacturer's invoice was issued in the name of the dealer and was thereafter endorsed to the appellant. The governing Board Circular dealt with transit sales and clarified that an invoice issued by the manufacturer, containing the prescribed particulars and showing the consignee as the end user, would be a valid document for taking credit. On the facts, the invoice showed the appellant as the consignee, namely the customer who had placed the order through the dealer. The circular therefore covered the transaction and supported admissibility of credit.

Conclusion: The denial of credit was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to credit under Rule 57A.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the manufacturer's invoice, in a transit-sale situation, identifies the claimant as the consignee or end user and otherwise contains the required particulars, credit cannot be denied solely because the invoice passed through an intermediary dealer.

---