CENVAT credit entitlement preserved despite receipt-location objections and delayed availment where duty-paid documents were available.

CENVAT credit cannot be denied on a hyper-technical objection where imported inputs are received in the assessee's factory and the duty-paid bill of entry is available, even if the goods are not routed through the head office. Delay in availing credit also does not by itself extinguish entitlement, because immediate availment is only an enabling facility unless the statute makes it mandatory. The result is that credit remains available on both grounds, and consequential demand and penalty cannot survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on the ground that the bills of entry were not in the appellant's name and the inputs were received at the factory instead of the head office; (ii) Whether CENVAT credit could be denied merely because it was not taken immediately on receipt of the inputs.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on the ground that the bills of entry were not in the appellant's name and the inputs were received at the factory instead of the head office;

Analysis: The relevant documents showed the bills of entry in the name of the appellant, and the only discrepancy was the place of receipt of the inputs within the appellant's establishment. The prior view relied on by the Revenue had already been reversed, and the governing principle from the Supreme Court decision was that where imported inputs are received in the assessee's factory and duty payment is evidenced by the bill of entry, credit cannot be refused on a hyper-technical objection as to endorsement or nomenclature.

Conclusion: The credit could not be denied on this ground and the appellant's claim was allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether CENVAT credit could be denied merely because it was not taken immediately on receipt of the inputs.

Analysis: The circular relied upon clarified that taking credit immediately is only an enabling facility and not a mandatory forfeiture condition. The Tribunal also followed its earlier view that delay in availing credit does not by itself extinguish entitlement, since the delay affects the assessee and not the Revenue. On that basis, the request to refer the matter to a Larger Bench was rejected.

Conclusion: The credit could not be denied merely for non-availment at the earliest moment and the appellant succeeded on this issue as well.

Final Conclusion: The demand confirmation and penalty could not survive, as the appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit on both counts.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit cannot be denied where imported inputs are received in the assessee's factory and the supporting duty-paid document is available, and delay in taking credit does not by itself defeat entitlement unless the statute expressly imposes such a bar.

---