CENVAT credit on endorsed bill of entry sustained where goods were received, invoiced, and used in the factory.

CENVAT credit was admissible where the duty-paid inputs were received in the assessee's factory, the importer endorsed the bill of entry in the assessee's favour, invoices were issued, and the goods were actually consumed in fabrication. A mere defect in the formal naming on the bill of entry did not justify denial when the essential evidentiary requirements of receipt and use were satisfied. On identical facts, the earlier view had treated the endorsed bill of entry and supporting declaration as sufficient for credit purposes, and denial solely for want of an original entry in the assessee's name was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied when the bill of entry was not originally in the assessee's name but was endorsed by the importer in favour of the assessee and the goods were received and used in the assessee's factory.

Analysis: The receipt of the goods in the appellant's premises, the endorsement of the bills of entry by the importer showing the appellant's factory as consignee, the issue of invoices by the importer, and the actual consumption of the inputs for fabrication were not in dispute. The governing rule permits credit where the duty-paid nature of the goods and their receipt and use are established, and a mere omission in the formal particulars of the document does not justify denial when the essential evidentiary requirements are satisfied. The earlier decision on identical facts, upheld in further proceedings, applied the same principle and treated the endorsed bill of entry and accompanying declaration as sufficient for credit purposes.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit was admissible and denial solely on the ground that the bill of entry was not initially in the assessee's name was unsustainable.

---