Tribunal grants cenvat credit for imported inputs used in manufacturing

The Tribunal held that despite the Bill of Entry not being in the appellant's name, they were entitled to cenvat credit as they received and utilized the imported inputs for manufacturing. Emphasizing the undisputed receipt and use of inputs, the Tribunal relied on legal precedents to support the appellant's case. The department did not dispute the appellant's use of inputs, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was eligible for credit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with appropriate relief.

---

---

Issues:
- Entitlement of cenvat credit based on endorsed Bill of Entry not in the name of the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in job work for manufacturing control panels and cabinets, received inputs directly from the port of import by the principal, M/s. SM Concast Engg. (India) Pvt. Ltd., along with endorsed Bills of Entry indicating the option of availing cenvat credit. The Customs authority also signed some endorsements. However, the department contended that the endorsed Bill of Entry was not valid as it was not in the appellant's name, leading to the denial of credit.

The appellant argued through Ms. Anjali Hirawat that the endorsement on the Bill of Entry made them eligible for cenvat credit, emphasizing that the receipt and utilization of inputs were undisputed. The goods manufactured through job work were cleared by paying duty to the principal, supporting the admissibility of credit. Legal precedents, including judgments like Trichem Lab (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., CCE vs. SS Cropcare Ltd., and Lalitha Equipments vs. CCE, were cited to bolster the case.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that despite the Bill of Entry being in the principal's name, the appellant had received and utilized the imported inputs in manufacturing the final products. Acknowledging that job work on directly imported inputs necessitated endorsement on the Bill of Entry, the Tribunal noted that the department did not contest the receipt and use of inputs by the appellant. Relying on the cited judgments, particularly Trichem Lab (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., SS Cropcare Ltd., and Lalitha Equipments, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit under the given circumstances. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with appropriate relief as per the law.

---