2012 (8) TMI 51 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Job worker of the appellant manufactured certain moulds for the former the ultimate use thereof in manufacture of intermediate goods for the appellant alleged that mould was not received in the premises of the appellant there was no mould further send by the appellant to the job worker Held that - Tools retained by it are property of the appellant and used to make components for the appellant - It was to reduce the exercise of movement of goods and no malafide was attributed or attached to the conduct of the appellant - cenvat credit does not appear to have been claimed malafide - appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of cenvat credit for moulds not physically moved between premises.

Analysis:
The appellant's job worker manufactured moulds for the appellant's use in manufacturing intermediate goods without physically moving the moulds between premises. The Revenue disallowed cenvat credit of Rs.8,69,320/- on the grounds that the moulds were not physically received by the appellant. The Revenue argued that the movement of goods is mandatory for claiming cenvat credit, and mere paper entries were insufficient. However, the job worker explicitly stated in the invoice that the moulds were the property of the appellant and used for manufacturing components. This statement was uncontested, and there was no malafide intent on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the rules should serve justice and not act as obstacles. The practical arrangement between the parties, as reflected in the invoice, was considered valid. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of a pragmatic and practical approach to the law. Since there was no evidence of malafide intent in claiming the cenvat credit, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's claim was upheld.