C.C.E. Vs. GOYAL M.G. GASES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the MODVAT Credit of duty was available to M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases Ltd. on the strength of invoice within was not in their name.

(2.) When the matter was called, no one was present for the respondents. Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned Advocate, has requested for adjournment which is not granted in view of the fact that the matter has already been adjourned earlier twice. I, therefore, heard Shri V. Valte, learned SDR and perused the record.

(3.) One of the invoices, on the basis of which credit has been taken by the respondents, we in the name of M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases Ltd., Kota whereas the Credit has been taken by M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases Ltd, Ghaziabad. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a specific finding, after examining the invoices, that though there was cuting in consignees' address but the same has been authenticated by the same person who has prepared the invoices and the address was changed from Kota to Ghaziabad. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sah Machine Tools Vs. CCE. , 1998 (98) ELT 287 (T) wherein the Tribunal has held that so long as there was no dispute about the receipt of the inputs and their utilisation and the fat that the inputs were covered by the invoice and that the appellants has not been found to have availed the benefit of both the units, incorrectness in address of appellants will not entail denial of credit. I entirely agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard and hold that the benefit of Modvat Credit cannot be denied to the respondents merely on the ground that there was change in the address from Kota to Ghaziabad. In other invoices, he buyer's name is M/s. Praxair India Ltd. Faridabad. However, the goods have been consigned to M/s. Gotal M.G. Gases, Delhi. It has ben observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order that a certificate, issued by m/s. Praxair India Ltd. was also brought on record to show that the goods has been supplied by them to the respondents at Delhi Address. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Standard Vs. CCE., 1998 (102) ELT 466 (T) wherein it has been held hat Modvat Credit cannot be denied merely because the invoices are in favour of Branch office and the goods have been received in the factory. I also observe that it has not been disputed by the Revenue that the inputs were duty -paid and the same were received in the factory for being used in the manufacture of the final products. Thus, in view of the subsequent amendment made in Rule 57G of the rules by Notification No. 7/99 -CE (NT) dated 9.2.99, the MODVAT credit cannot be denied on account of some minor procedural lapses in he duty -paying documents. The Board has also clarified, vide Circular No. 441/7/99 CX dated 23.2.99, that notification No. 7/99 CX dated 23.2.99, that notification No. 7/99 -CE (NT), has been issued so as to empower the Assistant Commissioner, having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer, to allow the credit ignoring minor procedural lapses provided the inputs have suffered duty and are being used in the process of manufacture. Thus, I do not find any merit in the appeal, filed by the Revenue, which is rejected.