Modvat credit on re-imported goods cannot be denied for a technical defect in the Bill of Entry when Customs attests the endorsement.

Modvat credit on re-imported defective goods cannot be denied merely because the Bill of Entry was not originally in the appellant's name, where the goods had earlier been exported, were re-imported as the same consignment, and the endorsement in favour of the appellant was attested by Customs. The Board's circular treated such endorsed and Customs-attested documents as sufficient for credit. On these facts, the objection was only technical and did not defeat the credit claim, so the assessee was entitled to avail Modvat credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the Bill of Entry was not originally in the appellant's name, when the re-imported defective goods were endorsed to the appellant and the endorsement was attested by Customs.

Analysis: The goods had been cleared on payment of duty, exported, and later returned as defective goods. The Bill of Entry was filed for the re-imported goods and specifically referred to the exported goods being re-imported. The consignment was endorsed to the appellant, and the endorsement was attested by the Customs Officer. The Board's circular recognised endorsement by the importer, with Customs attestation, as sufficient for availing credit in such circumstances. On these facts, the objection that the Bill of Entry was not in the appellant's name was only technical and did not defeat the credit claim.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit on the sole ground that the Bill of Entry was not in the appellant's name was not sustainable, and the credit was admissible in favour of the assessee.

---