Whether credit admissible on invoices issued in the old name of the company?

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2714

Case:-AMA INDIA ENTERPRISES P. LTD. VERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., LUDHIANA

Citation:- 2015 (316) E.L.T. 268 (Tri. - Del.)

Brief Facts:-The appellant are manufacturers of tractor parts chargeable to Central Excise duty. Their old name was M/s. R.I. Agri Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and their factory was located at Village Bhama Kalan, Machhiwara, Ludhiana. Later on they set up a new factory at Machhiwara Road, Bhama Kalan, Machhiwara, Ludhiana for which they received the construction services from M/s. M.R. Builders (Engineers and contractors) Model Town, Ludhiana. On the basis of the invoices issued by M/s. M.R. builders, they took Cenvat credit of Rs.8,68,077/-. The Department was of the view that since the invoices were in the name of M/s. R.I. Agri Business Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana and not in the name of AMA India Enterprises (P) Ltd., the appellant are not eligible for Cenvat credit. It is on this basis that the Jurisdictional Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 11-2-2011 confirmed the Cenvat credit demand of Rs.8,68,077/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals), the above order of the Additional Commissioner was upheld vide order-in-appeal dated 31-10-2012 against which this appeal has been filed.

Appellants Contention:-Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate, the learned Counselfor the appellant, pleaded that the only objection of the Department is that the invoices issued by the service providers are in the name of M/s. R.I. Agri Business Pvt. Ltd., Machhiwara, Ludhiana, not in the name of the appellant, that this objection is incorrect, as the old name of the appellant company is M/s. R.I. Agri Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and since at the time of entering into agreement with the service providers, their name was M/s. R.I. Agri Engineers Pvt. Ltd., the invoices had been issued in their old name mentioning the old address, that this fact is clear from the fact that the appellant vide letter dated 9-4-2009 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner had intimated the change of their name from M/s. R.I. Agri Business Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. AMA India Enterprises (P) Ltd. and also change in their address, and that since M/s. R.I. Agri Business and M/s. AMA India Enterprises (P) Ltd. are the same, the Cenvat credit has been correctly taken by the appellant. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct.

Respondents Contention:-Shri M.S. Negi, the learned DR, defended theimpugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized that the while the registration certificate is issued for Machhiwara Road, Bhama Kalan, Machhiwara, the agreement for construction mentions the construction of building at Kohara, Machhiwara and that the perusal of the contents of the agreement reveals that the contract of the service providers was signed on 11-11-2008 for construction of building at Kohara Machhiwara Road and the invoice No. 56 was issued on the very next day of signing the contract which bears the address of Machhiwara Road, Ludhiana. He, therefore, pleaded that the Cenvat credit has been correctly denied.

Reasoning of Judgement:-The tribunal have considered the submissions from both thesides and perused the records. The only objection of the Department, as mentionedin para 2 of the show cause notice, is 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. The grounds mentioned in the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order are minor discrepancies which are of no relevance and were not even mentioned in the show cause notice. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Decision:- Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The analogy in the case is that the assessee is eligible for taking Cenvat Credit in respect of the invoices issued in the old name of the company bearing old addresses as the said change in name was already intimated to jurisdictional authorities and permission was also received under Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to transfer the Cenvat credit balance available in the name of old unit to their new unit.

Prepared By:- Neelam Jain

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2714

Post a Comment

Query