9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, 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 worker, who does job work/proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 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 is true that M/s. Hindustan Leve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticularly, 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 Ltd. that Modvat credit cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odvat 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 was not proper for them to avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself, be in the nature of endorsement in their favour, made by the concerned person or the buyer in the cases, referred to above, by the ld. Counsel for the appellants and it has been settled that the name of the assessee has been shown either as a consignee or a customer, the benefit cannot be denied on this ground. In the facts and circumstances and since the issue has already been considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
