Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Modvat credit was admissible where the manufacturer's invoice, issued under Rule 52A, showed the commission agent's name but also identified the appellant as the buyer and the goods were dispatched directly to the appellant.
Analysis: Modvat credit under Rule 57G(2) was available when inputs were received in the factory under the cover of an invoice issued under Rule 52A and the invoice evidencing duty payment satisfied the prescribed requirements. The invoice in question was the original copy for the buyer, issued under Rule 52A(1), and it separately reflected the duty element and the price actually charged. The accompanying dispatch note showed that the same goods were sent directly from the manufacturer to the appellant in the same truck, establishing that the appellant had received the inputs under the manufacturer's invoice. The objection that the goods were consigned to the commission agent did not defeat the credit claim in these circumstances.
Conclusion: Modvat credit was admissible to the appellant, and the disallowance of credit was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit was set aside and the assessee's claim succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where inputs are directly received by the buyer under the manufacturer's original invoice issued in the prescribed form under Rule 52A, Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because the consignment note also bears the name of a commission agent, if the documents establish direct dispatch to the buyer.