Appellant entitled to cenvat credit despite invoices in job worker's name

The appellant, engaged in manufacturing aluminum, faced a challenge regarding cenvat credit denial due to invoices not in their name but as 'care of' a job worker. The court found that despite the initial dispute, the appellant was entitled to credit as the goods were received and utilized by them. The rectification of invoices with the appellant's name was justified, leading to the appeal being allowed, the impugned order set aside, and consequential relief granted to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to denial of cenvat credit based on invoices not in the name of the assessee but as 'care of'.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and clearing aluminum and its articles, operated as a job worker at a specific site in Chhattisgarh. They received inputs, availed cenvat credit, and transferred goods to other job workers for further processing at the same site. The Revenue disputed the credit availed due to invoices not being in the appellant's name but as 'care of' the job worker. The original adjudicating authority agreed that since the goods were actually received by the appellant, they were entitled to the credit. However, for five invoices where the appellant's name was added later by hand, manipulation was suspected, leading to a partial demand being upheld. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this demand, prompting the present appeal.

Upon review, the impugned order was examined, revealing that the invoices indicated customers as Seepko - Balco Site, with the consignee named as Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation, c/o Balco Site. The appellant's name was added by hand, objected to by the Revenue. It was clarified that Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation was a job worker at the appellant's project site, evident from the address details. The rectification of invoices by adding the appellant's name was justified, as the goods were actually utilized, and cenvat credit should not be denied on technical grounds. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

---