https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99686 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the invoices named M/s. Wiltech India Ltd. as consignee instead of M/s. Asian Cables & Industries Ltd., where the explanation that Wiltech was a division of Asian Cables was accepted by the authorities. The difference in nomenclature was not treated as a valid basis to disallow credit, since the consignee shown on the invoices was regarded as the same entity that had availed the credit before and after 4-12-1994. The assessee's claim was therefore allowed. en-us Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:49:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99686 Modvat credit could not be denied merely because the invoices named M/s. Wiltech India Ltd. as consignee instead of M/s. Asian Cables & Industries Ltd., where the explanation that Wiltech was a division of Asian Cables was accepted by the authorities. The difference in nomenclature was not treated as a valid basis to disallow credit, since the consignee shown on the invoices was regarded as the same entity that had availed the credit before and after 4-12-1994. The assessee's claim was therefore allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99686