2017 (8) TMI 1365 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - whether the credit availed on the endorsed Bill of Entry in respect of the imported goods cleared from Customs and directly shifted to the appellant s factory was tenable or not? - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Bhopal Versus M/s. S.S. Cropcare Ltd. 2016 (7) TMI 1140 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that The technical objection raised by the Revenue seems to be only one that Bill of entry was endorsed by the importer in favor of the assessee by the principal manufacturer and such endorsement cannot be accepted - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Wrongful availing of CENVAT credit on an endorsed Bill of Entry consigned to a third party.
2. Sustainability of the impugned order in law.
3. Interpretation of whether the credit availed on the endorsed Bill of Entry for imported goods directly shifted to the appellant's factory was permissible.
4. Precedential value of previous decisions on similar issues.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged an order confirming a demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Commissioner due to the alleged wrongful availing of CENVAT credit on an endorsed Bill of Entry consigned to a third party. The appellant, a manufacturer of P&P medicaments, had availed CENVAT credit on inputs supplied by a supplier for goods consigned to another entity. The issue revolved around the legality of this credit availing process.

2. The appellant contended that the impugned order was unsustainable in law, citing the disregard of judicial precedent. The central issue was whether the credit availed on the endorsed Bill of Entry for imported goods directly shifted to the appellant's factory was justifiable. The appellant argued that this issue had been settled in their favor by previous decisions, including their own case from 2014.

3. The appellant's counsel referenced various decisions supporting their position, such as CCE, Bhopal Vs. S.S. Cropcare Ltd., UOI Vs. Marmagoa Steel Ltd., and others. The appellant maintained that the issue had been conclusively resolved in favor of the assessee by these precedents. The learned AR, on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

4. After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the judge, S.S. Garg, found that the issue was decisively in favor of the assessee based on the appellant's previous case and the cited decisions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential reliefs. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 04/08/2017.