Cenvat credit on inputs sent to an admitted job worker cannot be denied for alleged non-receipt in factory.

Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely on an allegation that inputs were not received in the factory where the record shows they were sent to an admitted job worker under intimation to the department for processing under Notification No. 214/86. Once the department accepted that the inputs were transferred to the job worker, the allegation of diversion or non-receipt in the factory became unsustainable. On that basis, denial of credit on the ground of non-receipt was not justified, and the credit taken was treated as correctly availed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on the ground that the input goods were allegedly not received in the appellant's factory, when the goods were stated to have been sent to an admitted job worker under intimation to the department.

Analysis: The record showed that the department did not dispute the appellant's letter intimating that M/s I.J. International was its job worker and that inputs would be sent there for processing under Notification No. 214/86. In view of that admitted position, the allegation that the goods had been diverted and not received in the factory was unsustainable. Once the transfer of inputs to the job worker was accepted, denial of Cenvat credit on the ground of non-receipt of inputs could not be justified.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit could not be denied, and the credit taken by the appellant was held to be correctly taken.

---