2010 (5) TMI 454 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit Duty paying documents Invoice not in name of assessee - Department has failed to prove that the material was not received in the premises of the respondent as claimed by them - credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that the name of the consignee not shown in the invoice - It was not disputed that the goods were not received in the appellant factory and has not been utilized in putting put up the plant for manufacture of excisable goods by the appellant factory - Cenvat credit cannot be denied

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat credit based on invoices not issued in the name of the respondent.
2. Interpretation of Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules regarding consignee name on invoices for Cenvat credit eligibility.
3. Validity of Cenvat credit availed by the respondent on invoices consigned to a job worker.
4. Compliance with documentary evidence in support of Cenvat credit claim.
5. Comparison with precedent judgments on similar Cenvat credit disputes.

Analysis:
1. The appeal addressed the issue of the respondent availing Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,10,492/- based on invoices consigned in the name of M/s. Standard Surfactants Ltd., not issued in their favor. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the credit, leading to a penalty under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The learned DR argued that Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules mandates the consignee's name on the invoice body for Cenvat credit eligibility, which was not fulfilled in this case. However, the respondent's advocate contended that M/s. Standard Surfactants Ltd. was a job worker for the appellant, and the goods were received and utilized by the respondent, justifying the Cenvat credit claim.

3. The Tribunal found that the invoices were consigned to M/s. Standard Surfactants on behalf of M/s. Procter and Gamble Home Products Ltd., and the job worker did not claim Cenvat credit. The respondent was deemed entitled to the credit as the goods were supplied to M/s. Standard Surfactants on their account, supported by documentary evidence and a certificate from the job worker confirming no credit availed.

4. Emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, accepting their claim based on the clear indication in the invoices that the goods were meant for them and were utilized in their factory. The Department failed to prove non-receipt of materials by the respondent, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

5. Drawing parallels with a precedent case, the Tribunal highlighted that denial of Cenvat credit is unjustified when goods have been received and utilized by the appellant company. As the goods were not disputed to have reached the respondent's factory, the denial of Cenvat credit solely based on the consignee name on the invoice was deemed inappropriate, aligning with the principles established in previous judgments.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)