Tribunal grants credit despite ownership issues on moulds, recognizing their use as capital goods.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant credit despite ownership issues regarding moulds. The Tribunal emphasized the moulds' use as capital goods for manufacturing, supporting the appellant's credit claim based on previous decisions and the intended purpose of the goods. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the deemed removal of goods upon commercial invoice issuance but ultimately supported the appellant's position, highlighting the significance of the goods' intended purpose in granting relief.

---

---

Issues:
1. Ownership of moulds and its impact on availing credit.
2. Deemed removal of goods based on commercial invoice issuance.

Ownership of Moulds and Availing Credit:
The case involved the manufacturing of moulds transferred to another unit based on stock invoice, with commercial invoices raised but the physical transfer not occurring. The Commissioner held that as the moulds were not physically delivered to the buyers, the appellant, being the owner, could not avail credit. However, the Tribunal noted that despite ownership, the moulds were used as capital goods for manufacturing components on which duty was paid upon clearance. The Tribunal emphasized that the moulds being utilized for intended purposes justified the appellant's credit claim. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions supporting the irrelevance of ownership in such cases, ultimately allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief.

Deemed Removal of Goods and Commercial Invoice Issuance:
The Commissioner deemed the moulds to have been removed from the appellant's premises upon commercial invoice issuance, leading to the conclusion that the moulds were received back in the factory for manufacturing purposes. The Tribunal acknowledged this deemed removal but highlighted that if the moulds had been physically returned by the buyers, credit would have been available. By considering the use of moulds for manufacturing components and the duty paid on clearances, the Tribunal supported the appellant's position, emphasizing the significance of the intended purpose of the goods. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing relief to the appellant based on the circumstances presented and the legal precedents referenced during the proceedings.

---