TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (6) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant. Shri Jangir Singh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - These are 13 appeals filed by the appellants, Inder Poly-Fabs (P) Ltd. involving a common issue and, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Arguing for the appellant, Sh. P.K. Mittal, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellant is a job ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respactive units, their names were shown as buyers in the invoices and the appellants name was also shown in the same invoices as consignee. He submitted that the adjudicating authority, while adjudicating the proceedings, has observed that the appell-ants' name was not shown as owner of the goods and, accordingly, the appellants are not entitled to take Modvat credit on invoices. He said it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as consignee or the customer. Particularly, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Electronics Ltd. v. C.C.E., New Delhi reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 170. He also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Arunachal Plywood Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 830 (Tribunal) in support of his contention. It was held in the case of Larsen & Tubro L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is allowing the party to take Modvat credit on similar invoice in which his name was shown as consignee only. 3. Shri Jangir Singh, ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that since the documents were not made out in the name of the appellants and as a buyer, in whose name the documents were issued, had not endorsed the documents, in question, in favour of the appellants, it....