2017 (2) TMI 486 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the Bill of entry was not in the name of the appellant - entire consignment had been transferred by the principal manufacture in favour of the appellant - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara-II vs. Eupec-Welspun Pipe Coatings India Ltd 2009 (12) TMI 561 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that credit shall not be denied on the ground that the document does not contain all the particulars required to be contained under these Rules if the document gives details of payment of duty or Service Tax, Description of the Goods, Assessable Value, Name and Address of the factory of the receiver - the appellants are eligible to CENVAT credit on the CVD and Education cess paid in the said Bill of entry - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of CENVAT credit on imported raw materials used in manufacturing on job work basis
- Denial of CENVAT credit based on photocopy of Bill of Entry and reconstructed copy not in appellant's name

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against an Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit on imported raw materials used in manufacturing on a job work basis. The appellants carried out manufacturing activity for a principal manufacturer who imported raw material and paid CVD and Education Cess. The dispute arose when the appellant availed CENVAT credit based on a photocopy of the Bill of Entry, leading to a show cause notice alleging wrongful credit availing. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially denied the credit on the photocopy, and in a remand proceeding, rejected the reconstructed copy of the Bill of Entry as it was not in the appellant's name.

The appellant contended that the imported raw material was meant for their factory, as declared by the principal manufacturer. The issue of CENVAT credit eligibility in such circumstances was argued citing a Tribunal decision in Eupec-Welspun Coatings India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-II, upheld on appeal. The appellant argued that the facts of the present case were similar to the Eupec-Welspun case, where the Tribunal allowed CENVAT credit in a comparable situation. The Revenue reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals)' findings.

The crucial question was whether the appellant could avail CENVAT credit on the CVD and Education Cess paid by the principal manufacturer for the imported raw material. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, found the case akin to the Eupec-Welspun case and ruled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the appellants were eligible for CENVAT credit on the imported raw materials, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per law.