2018 (5) TMI 867 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - it was alleged that invoices are not in the name of assessee and his name appears only as care of - Held that - M/s. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation is job worker who is working at the appellants project site. This fact is also clear from the fact that address of the consignee has been shown as Balco Site. The invoices which already stand allowed by the adjudicating authority also showed the address of Balco Site. As such, the rectification of the invoices by consignee in writing the name of the assessee, cannot be faulted upon - It is well settled law that where the goods have actually been utilized, cenvat credit cannot be denied on technical grounds - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to denial of cenvat credit based on invoices not in the name of the assessee but as 'care of'.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and clearing aluminum and its articles, operated as a job worker at a specific site in Chhattisgarh. They received inputs, availed cenvat credit, and transferred goods to other job workers for further processing at the same site. The Revenue disputed the credit availed due to invoices not being in the appellant's name but as 'care of' the job worker. The original adjudicating authority agreed that since the goods were actually received by the appellant, they were entitled to the credit. However, for five invoices where the appellant's name was added later by hand, manipulation was suspected, leading to a partial demand being upheld. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this demand, prompting the present appeal.

Upon review, the impugned order was examined, revealing that the invoices indicated customers as Seepko - Balco Site, with the consignee named as Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation, c/o Balco Site. The appellant's name was added by hand, objected to by the Revenue. It was clarified that Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation was a job worker at the appellant's project site, evident from the address details. The rectification of invoices by adding the appellant's name was justified, as the goods were actually utilized, and cenvat credit should not be denied on technical grounds. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant.