TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (8) TMI 212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant manufactures soaps, detergents, chemicals, large number of products at various factories located all over the country. One such factory is situated at Haji Bunder, Sewri, Bombay-15. To manufacture soaps, polycoated stiffeners is one such input. It is a packing material used for packing the final product soap. It is received from the manufacturers of poly coated paper either in the form of jumbo roll or roll, which are slit to the required width. When jumbo rolls are received, they are required to be slit to the specified width in order that they can be mounted on packaging machines. The Appellant used to receive through job workers duly slit to the specified width under endorsed duty paying documents. Show cause notices dated 10-4-1991 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent and goods received. Modvat credit is not permissible. Identity of goods is challenged in this case, whereas ruling cited, it was not so. Gate Pass 1 was in the name of party, whereas in this case it is in Job workers's name. In the course of reply, it is urg- ed by the Appellant that endorsement by job worker as Gate Pass 1 establish identity under Rule 57F(2). The goods were not directly received by the Appellant. So not followed 3. Point to be considered is whether Modvat credit is eligible to the Appellant in this case? My finding thereon is in the affirmative. 4. Perused the show cause notices, reply, documents produced order-in-original, order-in-appeal, appeal memorandum Trade Notice No. 47/92, dated 25-9-1992 of Madhu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ob worker and description of the goods in the gate pass varies. Under the scheme of the Modvat credit the important aspect is that the Modvat credit is available only when the input received has suffered duty, which is supported by a duty paying documents, and the input is received and utilised in the manufacture of the final products. The source of receipt is not material. From the gate passes it is clear that the supplier has directly sent to the job worker, who after processing it has sent to the Appellant along with the gate pass with their endorsement. So from this it is clear the input has suffered duty and paid by the supplier. The identity of the goods is not lost as held by the lower authorities. Even accepting the case of the depa....