2004 (1) TMI 552 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for Modvat credit based on invoices not in the name of appellant.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing laminated paper, availed Modvat credit based on invoices issued by consignment agents. The claim was rejected as the credit was taken on invoices not in the appellant's name but in the name of other dealers. The issue was whether subsequent correction of the invoices to include the appellant's name validated the claim.

The respondents denied the allegation, and the Assistant Commissioner denied the credit. The appellate authority upheld the denial following the logic of the Order-in-Original. The key point of contention was whether the invoices were valid for claiming Modvat credit despite not initially being in the appellant's name.

Upon examination, it was found that the invoices were computer-generated with the names of consignment agents initially. Subsequently, the manufacturer corrected the invoices to include the appellant's name. This correction was supported by lorry receipts showing the transportation of inputs from the manufacturer to the appellant's factory. The correction of particulars in the invoice was deemed a valid adjustment, not requiring an endorsed invoice.

The concept of an endorsed invoice involves goods passing through an intermediate person who endorses the document. In this case, the manufacturer directly corrected the consignee's name, making it distinct from an endorsed invoice scenario. Therefore, the lower authorities erred in denying the credit based on the initial discrepancies in the invoices.

Conclusively, the impugned orders denying the Modvat credit were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law. The judgment clarified the distinction between endorsed invoices and corrected invoices, establishing the validity of the appellant's Modvat credit claim based on the corrected invoices.