9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not the owner. – Held that: - Tribunal was correct in allowing the Modvat credit on the capital goods received by the respondent particularly when the endorsement in the Bill of Entry was made in its favour by M/s. Frito Lay India. Accordingly, both the questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - 82 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2010 - Ashutosh Mohunta and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the bill of Entry was made in favour of the respondent, is without any basis?" 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Frito Lay India supplied capital goods to M/s Pepsico, out of which they manufacture finished products, namely, Masala Balls, Potato Chips and Tomato Wheels. The goods manufactured by the respondent were under the brand-name of "Lays" and "Cheetos". The respondent avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been allowed vide impugned order (Annexure P-3) passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 5. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that Modvat credit cannot be denied to the respondent in view of the law laid down in Sharda Motors Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, reported as 2002 (150) E.L.T. 759 and His Automotives Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, reported as 2004 (163) E.L.T. 116, wherein it has been hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the respondent, thus, Modvat credit could not be denied to the respondent. 7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was correct in allowing the Modvat credit on the capital goods received by the respondent particularly when the endorsement in the Bill of Entry was made in its favour by M/s. Frito Lay India. Accordingly, both the questions of law are answ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
