Appellant Wins Appeal for Input Credit Denial Due to Name Discrepancy

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the denial of input credit due to Bills of Entry not being in their name. Despite the Bills of Entry being in the name of their Head Office, endorsements in the appellant's name on both lorry receipts and Bills of Entry entitled them to CENVAT Credit as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal found the lower authorities misinterpreted the law, leading to the erroneous denial of credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appellant to claim CENVAT Credit on the inputs/capital goods.

---

---

Issues: Denial of input credit due to Bills of Entry not in appellant's name.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the denial of input credit based on Bills of Entry not being in their name. The Tribunal examined whether the appellant, despite Bills of Entry being in the name of their Head Office, was entitled to CENVAT Credit on inputs/capital goods. The appellant argued that all Bills of Entry were endorsed in their name by the Head Office, and the goods were delivered to their premises. The lower authorities denied credit citing the Bills of Entry issue. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that both the lorry receipts and Bills of Entry had endorsements in the appellant's name. As per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant was deemed entitled to the credit. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities misinterpreted the law, leading to the erroneous order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant to claim CENVAT Credit on the inputs/capital goods. The appeal was thus allowed, and the stay application disposed of accordingly.

---