9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal against the order-in-appeal dated 8-2-1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise. In this case the benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the appellant on the ground that in the invoice the name of the appellant was mentioned as consignee on the reverse of the invoice. Learned Counsel submits the appellants are manufacturer of Detergents Cake, Bar Soap and Powder and they were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the name of the appellant was not mentioned in the invoice as consignee. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit. 3. Heard both sides. 4. In this case the only objection the Revenue is that the name of the applicant as consignee, is on the reverse of the invoice in question. The Revenue is not disputing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the goods and the ultimate consignee, who happened to be the appellants. Such a description in the documents would, itself, be in the nature of endorsement in their favour, made by the concerned person for the buyer in the cases, referred to above, by the Learned 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, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
