2009 (12) TMI 561 - HC - Central Excise

High Court Upholds CENVAT Credit despite Discrepancies (2)

The High Court upheld the decision to allow CENVAT Credit to the Assessee despite discrepancies in the Bills of Entry and importer registration status. ... Cenvat/Modvat – Documents for availing credit - Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules (sic) that, credit shall not be denied on the ground that the document does not contain all the particulars required to be contained under these Rules if the document gives details of payment of duty or Service Tax, Description of the Goods, Assessable Value, Name and Address of the factory of the receiver – All details available except name and address of factory on Bill of Entry – Tribunal allowed credit recording finding of facts which also in consonance with Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – No substantial question of law arise Issues:Allowability of CENVAT Credit when Bills of Entry are not in the name of the Assessee and importer is not registered with Central Excise Authority.Analysis:The case involved a Tax Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara, under Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, questioning the allowability of CENVAT Credit to the Assessee. The main issue was whether the credit should be allowed when Bills of Entry (B/Es) were not in the name of the Assessee and the importer was not registered with the Central Excise Authority. The Tribunal referred to Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and noted that credit cannot be denied if the document contains details of duty payment, goods description, assessable value, and the factory address of the receiver, even if the name and address of the factory were missing on the bill of entry.The Tribunal further highlighted that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner could allow CENVAT Credit if satisfied that duty was paid and goods were actually used. It was found that all necessary details were present, except for the factory name and address on the bill of entry. The Tribunal considered a separate certificate/declaration issued by the importer as part of the bill of entry, emphasizing that both documents should not be isolated but viewed together. Based on these findings and Rule 9(2) provisions, the Tribunal concluded that credit should be allowed.The High Court, after reviewing the Tribunal's factual findings and considering the alignment with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, determined that no substantial question of law arose from the CESTAT's order. Consequently, the Court summarily dismissed the Tax Appeal, upholding the decision to allow the CENVAT Credit to the Assessee despite the discrepancies in the Bills of Entry and importer registration status.