9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1727 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - mobile cranes imported in the name of partner of the appellant s partnership firm when the Bill of Entry was endorsed by the partner in favor of the appellant firm - Held that - though the crane was imported in the name of the partner, but the same was received and used by the partnership firm i.e. the appellant. The Bill of Entry was also endorsed by the importer (partner) in favor of the appellant - the payment is not the criteria for taking the cenvat credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
Whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit for mobile cranes imported in the name of a partner of the appellant's partnership firm when the Bill of Entry was endorsed by the partner in favor of the appellant firm. Analysis: 1. The appellant claimed cenvat credit for mobile cranes imported in the partner's name but used by the partnership firm. The appellant's counsel argued that since the cranes were used by the firm and the Bill of Entry was endorsed in the firm's favor, cenvat credit should be allowed. The counsel cited relevant judgments to support the claim. 2. The Revenue contended that the appellant pays mobilization charges to the partner but has not paid for the cranes directly. Therefore, the Revenue argued that the appellant should not be entitled to the credit. 3. The Tribunal considered both arguments and found that although the cranes were imported in the partner's name, they were received and used by the appellant partnership firm. The Bill of Entry was also endorsed by the partner in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that payment for the imported crane was not a criterion for claiming cenvat credit. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that credit is admissible even if the value of goods is not directly paid, as seen in cases of job workers. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit in this case. 4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, granting them the cenvat credit for the imported mobile cranes.
|
