Job-work CENVAT credit upheld where fabrics stayed with the job worker and exports satisfied the Rule 12B mechanism.

CENVAT credit under the textile job-work scheme was upheld where fabrics were procured in the manufacturer's name, retained at the job worker's premises, converted into garments, and exported in the manufacturer's name. The document states that physical receipt or processing by the manufacturer was not necessary when the Rule 12B export mechanism was satisfied. A procedural objection based on the document requirement under Rule 12B was rejected because there was no relevant movement of goods and no shown prejudice. The accounts-based challenge also failed because aggregate purchase and consumption figures did not establish non-receipt of inputs or improper availment of credit, and the consequential recovery demand could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to CENVAT credit on fabrics procured in their name and retained by the job worker for conversion into garments exported in the appellants' name; (ii) Whether non-compliance with the document requirement under Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 barred the credit claim; (iii) Whether the accounts and consumption figures justified denial of credit and recovery.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to CENVAT credit on fabrics procured in their name and retained by the job worker for conversion into garments exported in the appellants' name.

Analysis: Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 permits a person engaging job work in textile and textile articles to get inputs procured and retained at the job worker's premises for conversion, and to clear the job-worked goods for export on the basis of invoice issued in the prescribed manner. The arrangement in the present case fell within that scheme: the fabrics were procured in the appellants' name, retained by the job worker, converted into garments, and exported in the appellants' name. The fact that the appellants themselves did not physically receive the inputs or undertake the manufacture did not defeat the credit claim under the job-work scheme.

Conclusion: The entitlement to CENVAT credit was upheld in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with the document requirement under Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 barred the credit claim.

Analysis: The document requirement under sub-rule (4) is directed to movement of goods from the person engaging the job worker to the job worker's premises. On the facts found, there was no such physical movement because the fabrics were already retained by the job worker after being procured in the appellants' name. The export clearance was also made after receipt of invoice from the appellants, satisfying the operative mechanism of the rule. In the absence of movement of goods and in the absence of any allegation of fraud or administrative inconvenience, the procedural objection could not defeat the substantive benefit.

Conclusion: The procedural objection was rejected in favour of the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the accounts and consumption figures justified denial of credit and recovery.

Analysis: The department compared monthly purchase and consumption figures and treated the discrepancies as proof of excess credit. The proper approach was to examine the aggregate figures for the relevant period. On that basis, the difference between total purchases and total consumption was marginal and was not shown to establish non-receipt of inputs or improper availment of credit. The allegation of improper accounts therefore did not sustain the recovery demand.

Conclusion: The account-based objection was rejected and the recovery demand failed.

Final Conclusion: The order denying credit and imposing recovery could not be sustained, and the appellants were held entitled to the credit and the consequential refund of unutilized credit arising from export.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the job-work scheme in Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, CENVAT credit on inputs cannot be denied merely because the inputs were retained at the job worker's premises and the manufacturer did not physically receive or process the goods, provided the statutory export-clearing mechanism is satisfied and no substantive prejudice from the procedural lapse is shown.

---