2009 (7) TMI 808 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - the name of the manufacturer on the goods is different from the name which is shown on the commercial invoice/packing list of the Bill of Entry - Held that - Tribunal has completely overlooked this submission and has decided the matter only on the basis of examination report which does not notice any change in the marks and name of the manufacturer - matter remand the matter back to the Tribunal - disposed of accordingly

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding entitlement to credit on goods due to manufacturer name discrepancy, denial of refund based on the same reason.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order concerning the entitlement to credit on goods found at their factory due to a discrepancy in the manufacturer's name on the goods and the commercial documents. The revenue contended that the appellant was not eligible for credit as the manufacturer's name did not match the details on the commercial invoice. The Tribunal upheld the revenue's contention, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellant argued that credit entitlement arises from legally imported goods with paid countervailing duty, emphasizing that there was no discrepancy between the goods at the factory and those listed in the Bill of Entry. The counsel highlighted that no swapping of goods occurred and insisted that denial of credit based on the manufacturer's name difference was unjustified. The court found this argument meritorious for consideration.

3. Notably, the department did not allege any value inconsistency in the goods between the manufacturer's stated value and the value declared in the bill of entry for countervailing duty payment. Therefore, the manufacturer's name difference should not impact the appellant's credit entitlement. The court observed that the Tribunal overlooked this crucial submission, indicating a legal error in the judgment.

4. In a separate appeal for refund, the appellant faced denial based on the same grounds as the credit denial. The court linked the refund issue to the credit entitlement matter, necessitating the setting aside of the impugned order. Although the refund denial was not deemed illegal, it was overturned due to its dependence on the credit issue, consolidating both matters for reconsideration.

5. Ultimately, the court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for fresh consideration in line with the law. The Tribunal was instructed to reevaluate the issues, leaving all parties' contentions open for review. Both Central Excise Appeals were disposed of accordingly, ensuring a fair and comprehensive reassessment of the credit and refund matters.