2018 (7) TMI 775 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - denial on the ground that the bills of entry against which the appellant has taken the Cenvat credit are not in the name of the appellant - Held that - Admittedly the facts are not dispute that the appellant has received the inputs and used the same in the manufacture of final products which have been cleared on payment of duty. Moreover the appellant is a job worker and the bills of entry are in the name of principal manufacturer who had transferred the goods to the appellant - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit on inputs due to bills of entry not in the name of the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant, a job worker, appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit on inputs as the bills of entry were not in their name. The Revenue argued that since the bills were in the name of the principal manufacturer, the appellant was not entitled to the credit under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant contended that they had received and used the inputs in manufacturing final products, cleared after duty payment. They relied on a previous Tribunal case and the SS Cropcare Ltd. case to support their claim. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the appellant, as a job worker, had indeed used the inputs received from the principal manufacturer in manufacturing final products. Citing their own previous decision and the SS Cropcare Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to avail the Cenvat credit. They also referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Union of India vs. Marmagoa Steel Ltd. case to support their ruling.

Therefore, the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit to the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.