1997 (6) TMI 213 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants Modvat credit in appeals by Inder Poly-Fabs! Name as consignee satisfies endorsement requirement.

INDER POLY FABS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

INDER POLY FABS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 420 (Tribunal) Issues:Modvat credit denial based on the name not being shown as a buyer in the invoice.Analysis:The case involved 13 appeals by the appellant, Inder Poly-Fabs (P) Ltd., concerning a common issue of Modvat credit denial. The appellant, represented by Shri P.K. Mittal, argued that they were job workers processing goods for M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Stepan Chemicals Ltd. The dispute arose from the disallowance of Modvat credit on various inputs due to invoices showing the buyers' names as Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Stepan Chemicals Ltd. instead of the appellant's name. The appellant contended that they acted as job workers on behalf of these buyers, and the goods were processed as per the buyers' instructions. The adjudicating authority denied Modvat credit, stating the appellant's name was not shown as the owner of the goods. However, the appellant argued that the gate pass accompanying the inputs showed their name as the consignee, supported by duty-paying documents. The appellant cited previous Tribunal decisions, such as Electronics Ltd. v. C.C.E., to support their claim that Modvat credit cannot be denied based on technicalities like duty-paying documents being in the name of one unit and not the other.Shri Jangir Singh, representing the Revenue, contended that since the documents were not made out in the appellant's name as a buyer and the original buyers had not endorsed the documents in favor of the appellant, Modvat credit should be disallowed. The Revenue argued that the proper procedure was not followed, and the documents produced were not valid.The Tribunal, comprising S/Shri G.A. Brahma Deva and J.H. Joglekar, considered the submissions. They noted that Modvat credit was denied solely because the appellant's name was not shown as a buyer in the invoice, despite being listed as the consignee. The Tribunal found that the appellant's name in the documents established the link between the goods and the ultimate consignee, satisfying the endorsement requirement. Citing previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's claim, emphasizing that if the appellant's name was shown as a consignee or customer, the benefit of Modvat credit could not be denied. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed all 13 appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellant, Inder Poly-Fabs (P) Ltd.