Cenvat credit on imported capital goods cannot be denied for delayed installation certificate when substantive use is proved.

Cenvat credit on imported capital goods was held admissible where the installation certificate, though not produced within the stipulated time under Notification No. 32/2005-Cus, was later filed during adjudication and showed that the goods were installed and used in the appellant's premises. The customs notification condition could not override the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in the absence of a corresponding restriction in those Rules. The description of the importer in the import documents also did not defeat entitlement, as the records showed the appellant's connection with the import and that duty-paid goods were received, installed, and put to intended use.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on imported capital goods could be denied for non-production of the installation certificate within the stipulated time under Notification No. 32/2005-Cus and on the ground that the import documents showed another entity as importer.

Analysis: The denial of credit was based on a condition found in the customs notification, but no corresponding restriction was shown in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The requisite certificate was in fact produced during adjudication and established that the capital goods had been installed and used in the appellant's premises. The import documents also reflected the appellant along with its proprietor, and the records showed that the goods had suffered duty, were received, installed, and put to intended use. In these circumstances, the procedural objection and the description in the import documents could not defeat the substantive entitlement to credit.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was unsustainable and the credit was admissible to the appellant.

---