Modvat credit on duty-paid moulds was admissible despite invoice name mismatch when used in manufacture.

Modvat credit on moulds used as capital goods in the factory was held admissible where the moulds were duty-paid, used for manufacture of final products, and the invoices named another party but showed the assessee as consignee. Rule 57Q allowed credit on capital goods used in the factory, and Rule 57Q(6) supported credit where such duty-paid capital goods were further used in manufacture in the same factory. The invoice name alone was not enough to defeat credit when the admitted use and duty-paid character of the goods were established.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit on moulds used as capital goods in the appellant's factory was admissible when the invoices were issued in the name of another party but the appellant was shown as consignee and the goods were used for manufacture of final products.

Analysis: The moulds were manufactured by the appellant, duty was paid on them, and the invoices named the purchaser while also showing the appellant as consignee. The moulds were admittedly used in the appellant's factory for manufacture of plastic components and parts. Rule 57Q permitted Modvat credit on capital goods used in the factory for manufacture of final products, and Rule 57Q(6) supported credit where specified duty-paid capital goods were used further in the manufacture of final products in the factory of the same manufacturer. On these admitted facts, the ownership objection based only on the invoice name was not sufficient to deny credit.

Conclusion: Modvat credit on the moulds was admissible and the denial of credit was unsustainable.

---