Modvat credit on invoices naming parent company remains admissible where the manufacturing unit and head office are the same entity.

Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the duty-paying documents named the parent company where the manufacturing unit was only a unit of that company and both operated from the same premises. The record did not establish that the concerns were separate manufacturers, and the surrounding facts showed that the factory and head office shared the same address. In that situation, absence of endorsement on the invoices was not a valid basis to reject credit. The credit claim was therefore admissible, and the departmental challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Modvat credit could be denied merely because the duty-paying documents stood in the name of the parent company when the manufacturing unit was only a unit of that company and both shared the same premises.

Analysis: The appeal turned on whether there was evidence that the two concerns were separate manufacturing units so as to attract denial of Modvat credit for want of endorsement on the invoices. On the record, there was no supporting material to establish that both entities were independent manufacturers of laminated pouches. The documents and surrounding facts showed that the manufacturing unit was only a unit of the company named on the invoices and that the head office and the factory were located at the same address. In that situation, the mere presence of the parent company's name on the duty-paying documents did not justify rejection of credit.

Conclusion: Modvat credit could not be denied on the ground of invoice nomenclature, and the credit claim was held admissible in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeals failed and the order allowing Modvat credit was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record shows that the consignee named in the duty-paying document and the manufacturing unit are in substance the same entity operating from the same premises, Modvat credit cannot be disallowed merely for absence of endorsement on the invoice.

---