2005 (10) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited have three manufacturing plants, I, II and III. During the period January to May, 1995, plant I (respondent) took Modvat credit on inputs on the basis of invoices which were addressed to plants II and III and not to plant I. On the invoices issued by one of the input-suppliers, the consignee's address was corrected from plant II to p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....decision in the case of L & T Ltd v. CCE [1994 (72) E.L.T. 948], wherein it had been held that Modvat credit was not to be denied to L & T Ltd., Kansbahal merely by reason of the fact that the duty-paying document showed the consignee's name shown as "L & T Ltd., Calcutta". In that case also there was no dispute of the fact that the input had been received and used in the manufacture of final prod....