Modvat credit on endorsed invoices remains valid for transfers within the same company's units, with no referable question of law.

Invoice endorsements within different units of the same company did not invalidate Modvat credit where the inputs were supported by invoices issued under Rule 52A and claimed under Rule 57A/Rule 57G(2). The Tribunal held that an invoice issued under Rule 52A remains a valid duty-paid document even after endorsement to another factory or unit of the same company, and that the settled position left no new question of law for reference under Section 35G. The departmental reference applications were therefore rejected, and the allowance of Modvat credit on endorsed invoices stood undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether reference under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was warranted on the question whether Modvat credit could be allowed on inputs covered by invoices originally issued to one unit but endorsed in favour of another unit of the same company.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that Modvat credit was claimed under Rule 57A and that the procedural requirement under the proviso to Rule 57G(2) permitted credit on invoices issued under Rule 52A. It held that an invoice issued under Rule 52A does not cease to be such an invoice merely because the goods are transferred by endorsement to another factory or unit of the same company. The view taken was consistent with earlier Tribunal decisions, and the applications did not disclose any new question of law requiring reference.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose; the reference applications were rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge failed and the Tribunal's view allowing Modvat credit on endorsed invoices remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An invoice issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 remains a valid document for Modvat credit under Rule 57G(2) even when the goods are transferred by endorsement within different units of the same company, and no question of law arises where that position is already settled by consistent Tribunal precedent.

---