TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (4) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Harbans Singh, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In this appeal which has been filed by the the revenue the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit to the respondents of Rs. 3,840/- availed by them on the basis of invoice wherein the name of the respondents was not shown as consignee, but as buyer. 2. Ld. Counsel has contended that it was only a procedural lapse and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce for home consumption' were mentioned in the invoice, as the goods were meant for delivery to the company's own office at New Delhi was also shown as consignee of the goods. There is nothing on record to suggest that the order for the goods were placed by the respondents directly to the manufacturing company named above. In the column name & address of the buyer, the address of the respondents i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is no letter of the manufacturing company or of its depot at Delhi, for passing the delivery of the goods to the respondents. An if the goods were to be delivered to the respondents directly, then they would have been shown as consignee of the goods. Ld. Counsel has also produced before me one certificate of M/s. Nitro Roadways Pvt. Ltd. to show the direct delivery of the goods but this letter has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the present case. That was a case of disallowance of deemed Modvat credit and the assessee being a Govt. Undertaking, could not place order directly on the manufacturer of the goods and for these reasons, it was observed that for using the name of the agent for placing order with the manufacturer, the assessee could not be penalised by disallowing the Modvat credit. Similarly the law laid down....