Modvat credit on subsidiary gate passes cannot be denied where the appellant is named as original customer.

Modvat credit could not be denied on subsidiary gate passes where the appellant was shown as the original customer and the sales agency was only a delivery channel. The document treated the agency endorsement as unnecessary because the appellant's name and address already identified it as the consignee for credit purposes. A further endorsement by another unit was only to avoid confusion and did not impair the gate pass as a duty-paying document. On that footing, denial of credit on the ground of double endorsement was unjustified, and the penalty was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied on subsidiary gate passes where the appellant was shown as the original customer and the intermediary endorsement was not essential for availment of credit.

Analysis: The subsidiary gate passes showed the appellant as the original customer with the consignment described as moving "through" the sales agency, indicating that the agency was only a channel for delivery and not the true consignee. On that basis, endorsement by the sales agency was not a condition precedent for credit. The further endorsement made by the appellant's other unit was merely to avoid confusion regarding the actual recipient and did not detract from the validity of the document as a duty paying document. The reasoning was also supported by the cited Tribunal view that credit cannot be denied when the appellant's name and address are already reflected as the customer in the document.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the ground of double endorsement of the subsidiary gate passes, and the penalty was not sustainable.

---