Modvat credit remains available where duty-paid inputs are received under invoices naming the consignee, despite altered tariff headings or endorsements.

Modvat credit remained admissible where duty-paid railway inserts were received in the factory and the invoices correctly identified the recipient, even though the tariff heading had been altered between classifications. The altered heading did not change the identity of the inputs for credit purposes, and any alleged manipulation was a separate legal issue. Credit also could not be denied merely because the invoices were endorsed, since the invoices named the appellant as consignee and the goods were cleared directly to it. Clerical or manipulative defects in invoice particulars, by themselves, do not defeat entitlement to credit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit could be denied on invoices where the tariff heading was altered from one classification to another, though the goods were described as duty-paid railway inserts received in the factory. (ii) Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the invoices were endorsed, though the invoices named the appellant as consignee.

Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit could be denied on invoices where the tariff heading was altered from one classification to another, though the goods were described as duty-paid railway inserts received in the factory.

Analysis: The goods were found to be the very inputs described in the invoices, received in the appellant's factory, and duty paid as reflected in the documents. The altered tariff heading did not change the character of the received goods for the purpose of credit, and any action for manipulation was a separate matter under law.

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

Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit could be denied on the ground that the invoices were endorsed, though the invoices named the appellant as consignee.

Analysis: The invoices themselves showed the appellant as consignee at the time of clearance from the manufacturers' factory. Since the goods were cleared directly to the appellant and the endorsement did not alter the appellant's status as consignee, the invoices remained valid for credit purposes. The denial based merely on endorsement was therefore unsustainable.

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

Final Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit on both sets of invoices was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the consequential relief flowing from acceptance of the credit claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Modvat credit cannot be denied where duty-paid inputs are received under invoices identifying the recipient as consignee, and clerical or manipulatory defects in invoice particulars do not, by themselves, defeat credit entitlement.

---