Modvat credit requires actual receipt of goods; technical relief to a supplier does not erase beneficiary liability.

Modvat credit is available only where the goods covered by the invoices are actually received in the factory and the supporting records establish duty-paid receipt. On the facts discussed, the evidence indicated non-receipt of goods, including the director's initial admission and transporter material showing delivery elsewhere, so the credit was treated as irregular. Setting aside penalty against the supplier on a technical ground did not affect the beneficiary's liability, because the factual basis of irregular credit remained. Relief granted to other noticees on different facts was also held not to require identical treatment, as each noticee must be assessed on the evidence against it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to Modvat credit on the strength of invoices when the goods were found not to have been received by them. (ii) Whether the setting aside of penalty against the supplier of invoices and raw material disentitled the department from sustaining duty and penalty against the appellants. (iii) Whether relief granted to some other noticees on different facts required similar relief to be granted to the appellants.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to Modvat credit on the strength of invoices when the goods were found not to have been received by them.

Analysis: Credit under the Modvat scheme is available only when the goods covered by the documents are actually received in the factory and the supporting documents establish the duty-paid nature of the goods. The evidence relied upon showed that the appellants' Director had initially admitted non-receipt of the goods, the transport documents and transporter statements indicated delivery elsewhere, and the alleged later version was not corroborated. The irregular availment of credit was also followed by payment of duty, which did not alter the underlying factual position.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to Modvat credit.

Issue (ii): Whether the setting aside of penalty against the supplier of invoices and raw material disentitled the department from sustaining duty and penalty against the appellants.

Analysis: The penalty order against the supplier was set aside on a technical ground relating to the inapplicability of the invoked penal provision, and not on a finding that the goods had in fact been supplied to the appellants. The factual basis of irregular credit availment remained intact. The appellants, being the beneficiaries of the irregular credit and having used it towards their duty liability, could still be proceeded against for duty and penalty.

Conclusion: The earlier relief granted to the supplier did not the appellants, and the duty demand and penalty were sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether relief granted to some other noticees on different facts required similar relief to be granted to the appellants.

Analysis: The evidence against the appellants was found to be qualitatively different from the evidence relating to other noticees. In the other cases, the receipt of goods was not disputed or the evidentiary foundation was materially different. In a multi-party matter, each noticee has to be judged on the evidence applicable to that party, and inconsistent results are not impermissible where the factual matrix differs.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to parity with the other noticees.

Final Conclusion: The demand of duty and imposition of penalty were upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit can be denied where the evidence shows non-receipt of goods, and relief granted to another person on a different factual or technical basis does not negate duty demand or penalty against a beneficiary of the irregular credit.

---