2013 (11) TMI 333 - AT - Central Excise

Invoice on Different Address - Availment of Cenvat Credit Held that - Following Plastic products Engg. Co. Vs, CCE, Ahmedabad 2009 (4) TMI 747 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - Wrong communication of name and address of the unit, by the supplier, who has sent the raw material to the correct unit, will not result in denial of credit - On receipt of the goods the other unit endorsed the invoices in name of the assessee inasmuch as the inputs were meant for the assesses Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over availment of Cenvat Credit based on invoices showing different address of the units.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the availment of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs. The invoices in question were issued in the respondent's name, but the address of their other units was mentioned. Upon receipt, the other unit endorsed the invoices in the respondent's name as the inputs were meant for them. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand against the respondent, allowing them to take the credit.

The core dispute revolves around the fact that the invoices used by the respondent to claim credit displayed a different address, belonging to another unit of the same respondent. The advocate argued that the invoices were in the respondent's name, who operated four units. The supplier mistakenly mentioned the address of a different unit, but the goods were correctly endorsed to the intended unit upon receipt. It is undisputed that the inputs were duty paid, received by the respondent, and used in manufacturing final products cleared after paying duty. Citing a precedent from the case of Plastic Products Engg. Co. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad, the Tribunal held that incorrect communication of the unit's name and address by the supplier, when the raw materials were sent to the correct unit, does not justify denying the credit.

Given that the issue aligns with the Tribunal's previous decision, the presiding judge, Ms. Archana Wadhwa, found no grounds to intervene in the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was rejected, affirming the respondent's entitlement to the credit.

This judgment clarifies the importance of substance over form in matters of availment of Cenvat Credit, emphasizing that technical discrepancies in documentation should not hinder legitimate credit claims when the actual transaction and utilization of inputs are duly established.