2008 (8) TMI 515 - AT - Service Tax

'Tribunal Grants Cenvat Credit on Steel Pipes, Emphasizes Comprehensive Interpretation of Rule 9(2)' (2)

EUPEC-WELSPUN COATINGS INDIA LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., VADODARA-II

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants, emphasizing the necessity to consider all relevant details collectively ... Cenvat Credit- the appellants are challenging that demand of Rs. 1,35,30,007/- confirmed by the Commissioner by disallowing the Cenvat credit availed by the appellants. The Commissioner has disallowed the credit on the ground that the importers have not register themselves as required under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules and the name of the assessee was not mentioned on the bill of entry. Held that- all these details are available except name and address of the factory on the bill of entry. The only omission is that instead of endorsing the bill of entry itself in the name of the assessee, the importer has issued separate certificate/declaration. It has to be seen in as part of the bill of entry and both of them cannot be segregated and seen isolation as done by the Department. It is quite clear that the credit has to be allowed in view of the provisions of Rule 9(2) in this case. Therefore appeal is allowed with consequential relief to appellants. Issues:Challenge to demand of disallowed Cenvat credit on Seamless Steel Line Pipes due to importer not registering under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules and absence of assessee's name on bill of entry.Analysis:In this appeal, the appellants contested the demand of Rs. 1,35,30,007/- disallowed by the Commissioner for Cenvat credit on Seamless Steel Line Pipes. The Commissioner disallowed the credit citing importer non-registration under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules and absence of the assessee's name on the bill of entry. The appellants argued that the bill of entry, under which the goods were imported, is a specified document under Rule 9 and that the endorsement on the bill of entry, along with a letter from the importer authorizing credit, should suffice. The appellants referenced various decisions supporting their eligibility for credit despite the bill of entry not being in their name.The ld. Advocate highlighted that the goods were received by the appellants with proper endorsements from the importers and Customs officer, certifying the appellants' right to avail credit. The Commissioner's argument that the duty paying document lacked required particulars was countered by Rule 9(2), which allows credit even if certain details are missing, provided essential information like duty payment, goods description, assessable value, and factory address are present. The jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner can approve credit if satisfied with duty payment and actual use of goods. The main contention was the absence of the factory name and address on the bill of entry, which the Department isolated from the importer's certificate/declaration. The Tribunal found that both documents should be considered together and not in isolation, as per Rule 9(2), leading to the conclusion that credit should be allowed in this case.Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants, emphasizing the necessity to consider all relevant details collectively under Rule 9(2) for determining Cenvat credit eligibility.