2015 (10) TMI 1961 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Invoices not in the name of assessee - Held that - While the appellant during April 2009 and May 2009 have availed the Cenvat credit, in question, on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. M.R. Builders, Ludhiana, the invoices are in the name of M/s. R.I. Agri Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Village Bhama Kalan, Machhiwara and not in the name of the appellant i.e. M/s. AMA India Enterprises (P) Limited, Machhiwara Road, Bhama Kalan, Machhiwara. It is seen that the appellant under their letter dated 9-4-2009 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner had intimated about change of their name from M/s. R.I. Agri Engineers Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. AMA India Enterprises (P) Ltd. Beside this, there is also a letter dated 18-2-2010 of Superintendent (Technical) addressed to the appellant company - M/s. AMA India Enterprises (P) Ltd., informing them that they have been granted the permission under Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to transfer the Cenvat credit in balance in the name of old unit to their new unit. This leaves no doubt that M/s. AMA India Enterprises (P) Ltd., and M/s. R.I. Agri Engineers Pvt. Ltd. are one and the same and M/s. AMA India Enterprises (P) Ltd. is the new name of M/s. R.I. Agri Engineers Pvt. Ltd. In view of this, the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant is incorrect - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Claim of Cenvat credit based on invoices issued in the old name of the appellant company.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of tractor parts, sought Cenvat credit based on invoices from a service provider for construction services. The Department contended that since the invoices were in the old name of the company, not the new name, the appellant was ineligible for the credit. The Additional Commissioner upheld this view, leading to a demand for Cenvat credit repayment, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) also supported this decision, prompting the current appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the objection was unfounded as the old and new names of the company were essentially the same entity. They presented evidence of name change notification to support their claim. In contrast, the Department reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) emphasizing discrepancies in the construction agreement and the address mentioned in the invoices.

Upon review, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had duly informed the authorities of the name change and had been granted permission to transfer Cenvat credit to the new entity. This, along with other supporting documents, established that the old and new names referred to the same legal entity. The Tribunal deemed the denial of Cenvat credit as incorrect, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the denial of Cenvat credit based on the discrepancy in the name mentioned in the invoices was unjustified. The decision was based on the legal recognition of the old and new names as representing the same entity, supported by official notifications and permissions granted to the appellant.