2004 (1) TMI 553 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Denial of Modvat credit based on endorsed invoices.

In this case, the main issue revolves around the denial of Modvat credit to the respondents on the basis that they had taken credit using endorsed invoices of the manufacturer. The Revenue contended that the invoices used by the respondents were not acceptable for Modvat credit as they were endorsed. The Asst. Commissioner supported this view, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned it, leading to the Revenue's appeal challenging this decision.

Upon examination of the invoices, it was found that the name of the manufacturer on the invoices had been corrected from "Berger Paints" to "Rosalee Paints." The invoices were issued by the input manufacturer and were not endorsed as claimed by the Revenue. The correction in the name was made by the manufacturer of the inputs, indicating that the credit was not taken on endorsed invoices but on corrected ones. Furthermore, it was established that the goods were not transported to the appellant's premises from the input manufacturer's factory, rendering the Revenue's appeal baseless.

Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondents. The judgment clarifies the distinction between endorsed and corrected invoices and emphasizes the importance of proper documentation for claiming Modvat credit, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondents in this case.