2014 (10) TMI 122 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of input credit - whether the appellant imported certain inputs/capital goods and Bills of Entry were in the name of their Head Office in all the six cases but in one case the address of the appellant itself was mentioned in the Bill of Entry - Held that - it is not in dispute that lorry receipts and the Bills of Entry are having endorsements in the name of the appellant. Therefore, as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT Credit on inputs/capital goods. The lower authorities have not understood the said provisions in true spirit therefore, they passed the impugned order. As the order is totally wrong and contrary to the provisions of law therefore, the same is set aside by holding that the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT Credit on the inputs/capital goods in question. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Denial of input credit due to Bills of Entry not in appellant's name.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the denial of input credit based on Bills of Entry not being in their name. The Tribunal examined whether the appellant, despite Bills of Entry being in the name of their Head Office, was entitled to CENVAT Credit on inputs/capital goods. The appellant argued that all Bills of Entry were endorsed in their name by the Head Office, and the goods were delivered to their premises. The lower authorities denied credit citing the Bills of Entry issue. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that both the lorry receipts and Bills of Entry had endorsements in the appellant's name. As per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant was deemed entitled to the credit. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities misinterpreted the law, leading to the erroneous order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant to claim CENVAT Credit on the inputs/capital goods. The appeal was thus allowed, and the stay application disposed of accordingly.