Cenvat Credit allowable when BOE not in the name of the Assessee?

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1027

Case: C.C.E. & C, Vadodara-II v/s Eupec-Welspun Coatings India Ltd

Citation: 2010 (260) ELT 381 (Guj.)

Issue:- Whether Cenvat Credit allowable when Bills of Entry not in the name of the Assessee and when importer has not issued excise invoice?

Brief Facts:-Respondent-assessee took credit on the basis of Bill of entry which was not in their name. The said bill of entry was endorsed in the name of the respondent by the importer by a separate certificate/declaration. Revenue contended that the said bill of entry was not a valid document for availing credit in terms of Rule 9 (2).

The Tribunal observed after referring to Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules that, credit shall not be denied on the ground that the documents does not contain all the particulars required to be contained under these Rules if the documents 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 Tribunal further observed that according to proviso to Rule 9(2), the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner can allow CENVAT Credit, if Commissioner is satisfied that the duty has been paid and goods have been actually used. The Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that all these details are available except the name and the address of the factory on the bill of entry. The only omission was that instead of endorsing the bill of entry itself in name of the assessee, the importer has issued separate certificate/ declaration. The Tribunal, therefore, took the view that the same has to be considered as part of the bill of entry and both of them cannot be segregated and seen in isolation as done by the department. The Tribunal held that the credit has to be allowed in view of the Rule 9(2).

Aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue filed appeal before the High Court.

Reasoning of the Judgment:- The High Court perused the order of the Tribunal and held that the Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact and it was in consonance with Rule 9 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. No substantial question of law arises.

Judgment:- Appeal dismissed.

Comment:- Credit can not be denied even if the Bill of entry contains all the substantial details. The cenvat credit cannot be disallowed on technical or venial breaches.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1027

Post a Comment

Query