2008 (3) TMI 418 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit- The assessee availed Cenvat Credit on Inputs/capital goods on basis of the invoices, wherein the suppliers had mentioned the brand name and address of the assessee. The adjudicating authority denied credit on the ground that the invoices did not bear the assessee s name. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. Held that- there was no dispute that inputs/capital goods had suffered duty and were used in the manufacture of final products. In any event, brand name of the assessee with its address instead of company s name in the invoices established ownership of the goods. So the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly allowed the credit. Accordingly, no reason was found to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the revenue was to be rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of Cenvat credit on inputs/capital goods based on invoices not bearing the Respondent's name.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of the Respondent availing Cenvat credit on inputs/capital goods despite the invoices not bearing the Respondent's name. The Adjudicating Authority initially denied the credit on this ground, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision.

The Appellate Tribunal examined the invoices provided by the Respondent, which included the full address of the Respondent along with the brand names "Hero Puch" or "Hero Motors." The Tribunal noted that the goods in question were indeed received by the Respondent and used in the manufacturing process, as recorded in the Register.

Referring to Circular No. 441/7/99-CX issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, the Tribunal highlighted that minor procedural lapses in invoices could be overlooked if the goods had suffered duty and were used in manufacturing. The circular emphasized the importance of ensuring that the inputs/capital goods had indeed suffered duty and were utilized in the manufacturing process.

The Tribunal concluded that the mere mention of the brand name known in trade parlance on the invoices, along with the Respondent's address, was sufficient to establish ownership of the goods. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in allowing the credit, as the goods had undergone duty and were utilized in the manufacturing process. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and affirming the eligibility of the Respondent to claim the Cenvat credit based on the provided invoices.