Plain-language construction of credit notifications: direct supply under invoice satisfied the condition despite delivery at a job worker's premises.

Exemption and credit notifications must be construed on their plain language, and no extra condition can be added by implication. Where Notification No. 58/97-C.E. required inputs to be received directly from the manufacturer of the inputs, that condition was satisfied by direct supply under invoice even though delivery was made at a job worker's premises rather than the assessee's own factory. The decisive test was the directness of the supply transaction, not the physical situs of delivery. On that construction, the assessee remained entitled to the credit benefit and denial of Cenvat credit was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 58/97-C.E. when the inputs were delivered to its job worker's premises and not physically to its own factory, and whether such delivery satisfied the condition that the inputs be received directly from the manufacturer of the inputs.

Analysis: Notification No. 58/97-C.E., issued under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, granted deemed duty credit on inputs subject to compliance with the prescribed conditions. The relevant condition required that the inputs be received directly by the manufacturer of the final products from the factory of the manufacturer of the inputs under cover of an invoice declaring payment of duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court held that the expression "received directly" governed the nature of the transaction and did not import a requirement of physical delivery at the manufacturer's own premises. The explanation to the notification, which contemplated invoice price and direct payment by cheque, reinforced that the material test was direct supply from the input manufacturer and not the situs of physical delivery. The notification could not be read down by adding a condition not found in its text, and exemption notifications must be construed according to their plain terms.

Conclusion: Delivery of the inputs at the job worker's premises did not defeat the assessee's entitlement, since the inputs were supplied directly by the manufacturer of the inputs and the invoices stood in the assessee's name with payment made by it. The assessee satisfied the notification condition and was entitled to the credit benefit.

Final Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: For availing an exemption or credit notification, compliance must be tested on the plain language of the notification; where the notification requires direct receipt from the manufacturer of inputs, physical delivery at the assessee's own premises cannot be insisted upon unless the notification expressly says so.

---