2016 (12) TMI 1210 - AT - Central Excise

Whether the appellant have taken Cenvat credit rightly of ₹ 1,76,812/- on inputs namely new insulating oil (transformer oil) under the fact that the invoice was addressed to its head office and not to the factory address? - Held that - it is not in dispute that the appellant have not received the inputs-transformer oil, the credit of which has been disputed. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have also accepted the receipt of the input, but have only observed that it appears that the input have been received in the head office and not in the factory. There is no allegation of the revenue that the head office is a separate manufacturing unit. Accordingly I hold that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,76,812/- under the facts and circumstances - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant rightly took Cenvat credit on inputs addressed to the head office instead of the factory address.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and repairing transformers, purchased new insulating oil with Cenvat credit of ?1,76,812. The Revenue objected to the credit during an audit, as the invoice was addressed to the head office, not the factory. The appellant reversed the credit but later took it suo-moto without prior permission. The Revenue issued a show cause notice proposing recovery under Section 11A. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appellant's appeal, citing lack of evidence of delivery to the factory, while upholding the interest demand in the Revenue's appeal. The appellant sought adjournment, claiming non-receipt of hearing notice, but it was rejected. The Tribunal found the appellant entitled to the credit as there was no dispute over receipt of the input, and the head office was not a separate manufacturing unit. Consequently, both appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and granting the appellant consequential benefits.