2024 (10) TMI 813 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - invoice though addressed to them but the address of job work is given and the goods were used at the job worker premises for the manufacture of goods to be used by the principal manufacturer - only allegation is that the inputs used in the job worker premises and the address of job worker is mentioned in the invoices - HELD THAT - It is found that only because the invoices bear the address of the job worker where the name of the appellant is correctly mentioned, Cenvat credit cannot be denied. Since goods have to be processed by the job worker obviously the address of the job worker has to be there on the invoice as consignee, despite this the job worker admittedly carries out the job work for the principal only, therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the invoice and the appellant are eligible for the Cenvat credit. It is found that in some of the invoice even the name of the job worker is appearing but even if in such cases job worker is not the buyer of the goods but only consignee to process the inputs on behalf of the principal manufacturer i.e. the appellant. Therefore, in such case also Cenvat credit is admissible to the appellant. However, the factual aspect of receipt of inputs at the job worker premises and use thereof needs to be verified by the adjudicating authority. Cenvat credit on courier service is admissible to the appellant - the appeal is partly allowed in respect of courier service and in other services the appeal is party remanded to the adjudicating authority.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant, as a principal manufacturer, is eligible for Cenvat credit on invoices addressed to them but with the job work address given, and the goods used at the job worker premises for manufacturing goods for the principal manufacturer.

Analysis:
The appellant's counsel argued that despite the job worker's address being on the invoice, as the goods were used for manufacturing goods for the principal manufacturer, credit cannot be denied. The counsel emphasized that the appellant's name was correctly mentioned in the invoices. It was contended that the lower authorities exceeded the show cause notice's scope by denying credit based on lack of evidence of input receipt and use. The counsel cited various judgments to support the appellant's position.

The Revenue's representative reiterated the impugned order's findings, maintaining the denial of credit.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that merely mentioning the job worker's address on the invoice, with the appellant's name correctly stated, does not warrant denying Cenvat credit. Since the job worker processes goods for the principal manufacturer, the presence of the job worker's address on the invoice is justified. The Tribunal held that the appellant is eligible for the credit. However, it noted that verification of input receipt and use at the job worker premises is necessary, directing the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh order.

Regarding the courier service issue, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the appellant's case where Cenvat credit on courier services was allowed. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal ruled that Cenvat credit on courier services is admissible to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed concerning courier services, while remanding other services to the adjudicating authority for further review.

The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 16.10.2024.