2012 (11) TMI 1021 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - whether the appellant can claim CENVAT credit of the additional duty of customs (CVD) paid on the capital goods received by them under the cover of a commercial invoice and an endorsed Bill of Entry issued by the importer of such goods - Held that - Department has no case that the imported capital goods were not received in the appellant s factory or not used for the purpose of manufacturing excisable goods. The limited ground raised for denying CENVAT credit to the appellant is that the endorsed Bill of Entry is not one of the documents prescribed under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. It is not even the case of the Department that the capital goods in question were not received in the appellant s factory and not used for manufacture of excisable products. In these circumstances I am of the view that the CENVAT credit of the CVD paid on the capital goods cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground alleged in the show-cause notice - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Whether the appellant can claim CENVAT credit of the additional duty of customs (CVD) paid on capital goods received under an endorsed Bill of Entry.

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit of the CVD paid on capital goods received under an endorsed Bill of Entry. The Department sought to deny the credit, arguing that the endorsed Bill of Entry was not a valid document under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant relied on case law to contest this demand.

2. The appellant presented a commercial invoice lacking essential particulars required for claiming CENVAT credit. The absence of crucial details like duty amount and goods description rendered the document insufficient for credit claim. Moreover, this document was not submitted to the lower authorities during the proceedings.

3. The appellant argued for the validity of endorsed Bills of Entry for availing CENVAT credit, citing precedents where such endorsements were accepted. The appellant relied on the case of Marmagoa Steel Ltd., which allowed credit based on evidence of goods receipt and utilization, despite endorsement absence. In contrast, the Additional Commissioner cited Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd., which remanded a similar case based on the Marmagoa Steel Ltd. judgment.

4. The comparison with Marmagoa Steel Ltd. highlighted the importance of actual receipt and use of goods in determining credit eligibility. The absence of an explicit provision for endorsement did not preclude credit entitlement if goods were received and utilized for manufacturing excisable products. The Court emphasized the factual aspect of goods utilization over technicalities of document endorsement.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of actual receipt and usage of capital goods in manufacturing processes. The decision underscored the significance of factual evidence of goods utilization over strict adherence to procedural requirements, thereby granting the appellant the right to claim CENVAT credit on the disputed capital goods.