Modvat credit denied where invoices were not in claimant's name and endorsed invoices failed statutory compliance.

Modvat credit under Rule 57G was denied because the statutory invoice requirement was not met: the invoices were issued in another unit's name, the goods were procured through that unit, and payment was made to that unit rather than directly to the manufacturer. Mere receipt and installation of the goods in the claimant's factory did not cure the defect, and endorsement of the invoices was held insufficient compliance. The lapse was treated as substantive, not procedural, so credit was not admissible and the Revenue's challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit was admissible when the invoices were not issued in the respondent's name and the goods were procured through another unit with endorsed invoices.

Analysis: Credit under Rule 57G required proper invoices in the claimant's name. The goods had been purchased from another unit, the invoices stood in that unit's name, and payment was also made to that unit rather than to the manufacturer directly. Mere receipt and installation of the goods in the respondent's factory did not cure the defect. Endorsement of invoices in these circumstances was not treated as sufficient compliance, and the lapse was held to be substantive rather than procedural.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was not admissible to the respondent, and the Revenue's challenge succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing credit was set aside and the Revenue obtained relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be claimed unless the statutory invoice requirements are satisfied, and credit is not available on endorsed invoices where the invoices are not issued in the claimant's name.

---