Tribunal grants Cenvat credit for inputs sent to head office, not factory.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting the appellant consequential benefits, as it found the appellant entitled to Cenvat credit on inputs addressed to the head office instead of the factory, considering there was no dispute over receipt of the input and the head office was not a separate manufacturing unit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appellant's appeal due to lack of evidence of delivery to the factory, but the Tribunal overturned this decision and upheld the appellant's right to the credit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant rightly took Cenvat credit on inputs addressed to the head office instead of the factory address.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and repairing transformers, purchased new insulating oil with Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,76,812. The Revenue objected to the credit during an audit, as the invoice was addressed to the head office, not the factory. The appellant reversed the credit but later took it suo-moto without prior permission. The Revenue issued a show cause notice proposing recovery under Section 11A. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appellant's appeal, citing lack of evidence of delivery to the factory, while upholding the interest demand in the Revenue's appeal. The appellant sought adjournment, claiming non-receipt of hearing notice, but it was rejected. The Tribunal found the appellant entitled to the credit as there was no dispute over receipt of the input, and the head office was not a separate manufacturing unit. Consequently, both appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and granting the appellant consequential benefits.

---