9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eva, 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/processing on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Stepan Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 Lever Ltd. and M/s. Stepan Chemicals Ltd. were the owners as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 denied on the ground of technilities like duty-paying do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn 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 of Modvat credit. He contended that such original buyers of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 by the Tribunal in the various cases including the cases, referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
