w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Aviat Healthcare Pvt. Ltd V/S CCE, Belapur

    Appeal No. E/866/12 (Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. BC/344/BEL/2011-12 dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III)

    Decided On, 13 July 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: RAMESH NAIR
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Punit Gupta, CA And For Respondents: Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR)



Judgment Text


1. The fact of the case is that the appellant availed cenvat credit on a bill of entry which is not in the name of the appellant whereas the same is in the name of USV Ltd. Though the appellant have submitted a belated declaration, wherein it is declared the appellant shall avail the cenvat credit. Both the authorities below denied the cenvat credit on the ground that the bill of entry is not in favour of the appellant.

2. Shri Punit Gupta, Ld. CA appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that even though the bill of entry is in the name of USV Ltd. but the material covered under the bill of entry was received by the appellant and used in the manufacture of goods on behalf of USV Ltd. He submits that the appellant have obtained a declaration from the customs wherein the declaration to the effect that the appellant was availing the cenvat credit is given. Thereafter there is no reason to deny the cenvat credit. He submits that merely due to the reason that the bill of entry was not in the name of the appellant credit cannot be denied, this issue has been settled in the following judgments:-

i) CCE vs. Welspun Pipe Coatings India Ltd : 2010 (260) ELT 381 (Guj)

ii) Suyash Chemicals : 2016-TIOL-476-CESTAT-MUM

iii) Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd : 2014-TIOL-438-CESTAT-MUM

iv) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2016-TIOL-297-CESTAT-KOL

v) Soorajmull Baijnath Inds. P. Ltd : 2009 (240) ELT 229

vi) Trichem Lab (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd : 2016 TIOL-1025-CESTAT-MUM

3. Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that the name and address of the consignee on the duty paying documents is very vital requirement otherwise anybody can claim the credit from any duty paying document and there will be chances of misuse of cenvat scheme. Therefore the correct name and address of the assessee who availed the cenvat credit is mandatory requirement. Therefore, the lower authorities have rightly denied the cenvat credit.

4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides. I find that even though the bill of entry is not in the name of the appellant but on the strength of declaration which is in their favour and also on the fact of receipt of goods by the appellant, the cenvat credit should be allowed. The appellant has submitted various documents to establish that they have received the goods covered under the bill of entry and used in the production on behalf of USV Ltd. However, both the lower authorities have not gone into the documentary evidence regarding receipt and use of the material. Therefore matter needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority. I make it clear that only for the reason that the bill of entry does not bear the name of the appellant, cred

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

it cannot be denied. On verification, if it is established that the goods covered under bill of entry was received by the appellant and used in the production, the cenvat credit is admissible to the appellant. 5. With the above observation, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
O R