Modvat credit entitlement upheld where documentary evidence showed receipt of goods despite endorsement, invoice, and registration objections.

Modvat credit was treated as admissible where endorsed subsidiary certificates continued to evidence entitlement, invoices named another purchaser but identified the assessee as the consignee, and later registration proof showed the dealer was registered. The analysis emphasises that substantive receipt of goods and supporting documentary evidence prevailed over procedural objections about endorsement history, invoice nomenclature, or alleged absence of dealer registration. On each ground, the credit claim was upheld because the surrounding records established eligibility.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the subsidiary certificate had been endorsed to the assessee, (ii) whether Modvat credit was admissible where the invoices named another purchaser but the goods were shown as destined for the assessee, and (iii) whether credit could be denied for want of dealer registration when subsequent registration evidence was produced.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the subsidiary certificate had been endorsed to the assessee.

Analysis: The certificate showed that the appellants had another unit with separate excise registration and that the subsidiary certificate had been issued in favour of that unit before being endorsed to the present appellants. The endorsement did not destroy entitlement, and even a second endorsement was treated as permissible for availing the credit.

Conclusion: The credit of Rs. 4,300/- was admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit was admissible where the invoices named another purchaser but the goods were shown as destined for the assessee.

Analysis: The invoices were issued in the name of another concern, but the destination column contained the assessee's name and address, showing the assessee as the recipient of the goods. The cited Central Board circulars dealing with transit sales supported credit entitlement in such circumstances.

Conclusion: The credit of Rs. 79,200/- was admissible.

Issue (iii): Whether credit could be denied for want of dealer registration when subsequent registration evidence was produced.

Analysis: The denial rested on the assumption that the dealer was not registered, but a registration certificate dated 17-8-1994 was produced showing that the dealer was in fact registered. The later-produced certificate established the factual basis for the claim.

Conclusion: The credit of Rs. 10,066/- was admissible.

Final Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit on all three counts was unsustainable, and the assessee was held entitled to the credit in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied where the relevant documents and surrounding evidence establish receipt of goods and entitlement, and procedural objections such as endorsement history or registration defects do not prevail over substantiated eligibility.

---