2018 (5) TMI 972 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - endorsed Bill of Entry - whether the appellant is entitled for the cenvat credit on the strength of Bill of Entry which is in the name of the principal who imported the inputs, but the Bill of Entry was endorsed in favour of the appellant? Held that - apart from the endorsement, the fact is not under dispute that the input on which credit was availed has been received in the factory of the appellant and used in the manufacture of final product. In case of job work on the imported inputs which is directly supplied from the port of import to the job worker, there cannot be any other procedure other than endorsement of Bill of Entry - It is also admitted that in some of the Bills of Entry, the endorsement was signed by the Customs authority. Credit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement of cenvat credit based on endorsed Bill of Entry not in the name of the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in job work for manufacturing control panels and cabinets, received inputs directly from the port of import by the principal, M/s. SM Concast Engg. (India) Pvt. Ltd., along with endorsed Bills of Entry indicating the option of availing cenvat credit. The Customs authority also signed some endorsements. However, the department contended that the endorsed Bill of Entry was not valid as it was not in the appellant's name, leading to the denial of credit.

The appellant argued through Ms. Anjali Hirawat that the endorsement on the Bill of Entry made them eligible for cenvat credit, emphasizing that the receipt and utilization of inputs were undisputed. The goods manufactured through job work were cleared by paying duty to the principal, supporting the admissibility of credit. Legal precedents, including judgments like Trichem Lab (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., CCE vs. SS Cropcare Ltd., and Lalitha Equipments vs. CCE, were cited to bolster the case.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that despite the Bill of Entry being in the principal's name, the appellant had received and utilized the imported inputs in manufacturing the final products. Acknowledging that job work on directly imported inputs necessitated endorsement on the Bill of Entry, the Tribunal noted that the department did not contest the receipt and use of inputs by the appellant. Relying on the cited judgments, particularly Trichem Lab (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., SS Cropcare Ltd., and Lalitha Equipments, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit under the given circumstances. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with appropriate relief as per the law.