Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This judgement shall dispose of CEA No. 22 of 2004 and CEA No. 92 of 2006, as common questions of law and fact arise in both these appeals. For convenience, the facts have been extracted from CEA No. 22 of 2004. 2. The Revenue has impugned the judgment (Annexure P-3) passed by the Custom, Excise & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) dated 20-11-2003 [2007 (220) E.L.T. 155 (Tri.-Del.)], vide which the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed and it was held that the respondents are entitled to modvat credit in respect of inputs/parts/component used in the manufacture of final product. 3. The respondents are the manufacturers of Tractors. They placed orders for Chasis Painting Plant from M/s. Haden Josts Engineering India Ltd. The parts of the Plant were received in the factory of the respondent and the same were also mentioned in the inputs as consignee alongwith the name of their contractor. The parts were also duty paid. 4. As Duty had been paid on the inputs and the parts, therefore, the respondents were entitled to modvat credit. It is pertinent to mention here that M/s. Haden Josts Engineering India Ltd. had not taken any modvat credit and the modvat credits were taken by the respondent M/s. International Tractors Ltd. It is thus, clear that one of the parties was entitled to get the modvat credit for the inputs and the parts which were duty paid and the respondents were clearly entitled to receive the modvat credit. As far as the appellant is concerned, they have not suffered any loss, as the modvat credit has only been taken once by the respondent and no modvat credit has been taken by M/s. Haden Josts Engineering India Ltd. 5. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed.