2007 (2) TMI 65 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat Appellant contended that the invoices in the name of other company on account of it and installed in their factory and demand fof credit on it Commissioner allowed the appellant contention

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of credit for capital goods and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing steel ingots and billets, entered into an agreement with M/s. General Electric Company for expanding their unit by installing a new furnace. Capital goods were procured by M/s. General Electric Company on behalf of the appellant and installed in their factory, leading to a dispute. The appellant argued that the invoices were in M/s. General Electric Company's name but on their behalf, and the goods were received and installed in their factory. Reference was made to Rule 57T, emphasizing that capital goods should be originally consigned to the assessee in the duty paying documents. It was noted that Rule 57G and Rule 57T have been amended, stating that credit cannot be denied if the documents contain specific details, even if some particulars are missing.

The show-cause notice was issued on the grounds that the goods were not originally consigned to the manufacturer in the duty paying documents. However, it was found that the invoices mentioned the goods on the appellant's account, with the factory address also being that of the appellant. Additionally, the duty-paid capital goods, consigned to the appellants, were installed in their unit. Consequently, the denial of credit was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were granted entitlement to any consequential relief in accordance with the law.

The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing a clear resolution to the issue of denial of credit for capital goods and the imposition of penalties under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.