ORDER
Joyti Balasundaram Member (J)
1. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of P&P medicines falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, and availing Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs for the manufacture of their final products. It was noticed that they had availed of Modvat credit of Rs. 2,52,774.98 on the strength of Bills of Entries showing somebody else as the consignee. Therefore, notice proposing disallowance of credit of the above mentioned amount was issued. The notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector who passed the order-in-original dated 27-9-1988 vacating the demand of Rs. 2,27,524.78 but confirming the denial of an amount of Rs. 31,250.10. The Commissioner (Appeals) on hearing the submissions of the importers that they had received the entire consignment with proper endorsement on the bill of entry and were, therefore, entitled to credit of Rs. 31,250.10, remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, who passed fresh adjudication order dated 28-7-1994 holding that credit of Rs. 28,125.16 which is the amount taken as credit on that particular bill of entry was admissible to the importers. The Commissioner (Appeals) before whom the Revenue preferred an appeal upheld that order of the Assistant Collector; hence this appeal.
2. In the appeal before the Tribunal the Revenue urges that the endorsement was an afterthought because it was made about six years after the date of the bill of entry and only at the time of de novo adjudication by Assistant Collector and, therefore, cannot be accepted for holding that the goods covered under the bill of entry were transferred to the present respondents.
3. On hearing the learned DR and perusing the records I agree with the Revenue that since the original bill of entry did not contain any endorsements showing transfer of the consignment covered thereunder to the respondent herein, this is not a defect which can be rectified by subsequent endorsement. Document on the basis of which credit was availed was made out in favour of somebody else and not the respondents. Therefore, credit is not admissible thereupon. The subsequent endorsement cannot be accepted.
4. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue.