MARK-LAMB COLLOR PLUS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants filed these appeals against the common order in appeal; passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

(2.) In the present case the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that the invoices were in the name of the Head Office, whereas the credit was taken in the factory. The credit was also denied on the gound that address of the appellant's factory was not correctly mentioned.

(3.) The contention of the appellants is that the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a Circular dated 14.5.1996 whereby it was clarified that credit shall not be denied on the ground that invoice was in the name of the Head Office of the manufacturer, whereas the credit was taken in the manufacturing Unit. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chrome Chemical Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta -IV, reported in 2001 (135) ELT 405 (Tri. -Kolkata), wherein in similar situation the credit was allowed.