ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 5,45,063/- on reversal of Modvat credit and Rs. 1 lakh imposed as penalty, it appeared that the issue being simple, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, it was done on granting the prayer for waiver.
2. The appellants manufactured medicine named ‘phexin’ for a loan licensee. They had taken credit on the strength of two invoices which showed the loan licensee as the consignee, and not the appellants. Queries were raised and the assessee explained to the jurisdictional officers that normally the goods were received from the supplier on the invoices showing both the names of the licensee and the manufacturer. In these two cases, by mistake, only the name of the loan licensee was shown. In spite of this explanation, a show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of the amount referred to above. Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty, in doing so he cited certain case laws. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order citing other case law.
3. Shri Mehta, ld. Advocate for the appellants refers to Tribunal judgment in the case of Crop Health Products Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 376 (T). In the judgment the appellants were in identical circumstances and the invoices bore name of the loan licensee but not of the actual manufacturer. In that situation the Tribunal held that the omission of the name of the consignee and his address, though not a minor omission, should not disentitle the manufacturer from the benefit of Modvat credit so long as the goods had been received by the manufacturer.
4. Since in this case the actual receipt of the goods is not disputed, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable and the appeal succeeds.