2012 (12) TMI 462 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat Credit - Held that - Cenvat Credit on the Goods imported and sold to the assessee,if are found same, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on the ground that Bill of Entry was not endorsed by the port authority although it was duly endorsed by the importer in favour of the appellant through appropriate entry and under cover of those bills of entry the goods moved to the factory of the appellant - in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Dispute over Cenvat credit denial based on non-endorsement of Bill of Entry by port authority.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that the goods received were the same as those imported and sold by another entity, with no dispute on the goods' identity. The Revenue disallowed Cenvat credit solely due to the Bill of Entry lacking endorsement by the port authority. The appellant contended that the Bill of Entry was endorsed by the importer in their favor, indicating direct receipt of imported goods at their factory from the port. The appellant emphasized compliance with Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and sought allowance of the appeal along with the stay application.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute involved both factual and legal aspects, with the balance of convenience favoring the appellant leading to the stay application's approval. Considering the detailed arguments presented, the Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as well in the same order.

The judgment highlighted that the goods, initially subject to Customs duty, became eligible for Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Although payment of Customs duty was not contested, the issue arose from the lack of endorsement on the accompanying documents by the port authority. Despite this, the arrival of the goods at the appellant's factory was undisputed, with the goods matching the description in the bill of entry. The Tribunal found no evidence challenging the nature of the goods or their eligibility for Cenvat credit. The application of Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was deemed irrelevant in this context, as it pertained to domestic goods rather than imported ones. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit on unquestioned goods was upheld, emphasizing the material nature of the goods over procedural documentation requirements.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, concluding that the appellant succeeded entirely in the appeal. The decision rendered the stay application disposed of in the same order, providing a comprehensive resolution to the dispute.