TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Brass Ingots. The said companies entered into contract with M/s Mitesh Impex, Jamnagar, for purchase of the Brass Ingots and the goods would be delivered to the appellant. Accordingly, M/s Mitesh Impex supplied the goods to the appellant under cover of Central Excise invoice in the name of said Companies and deliver to Mahalaxmi Extrusions, Jamnagar (i.e., appellant), who availed Cenvat Credit on the basis of said Central Excise invoices. 2. A show cause notice dtd 14.2.2006 was issued by the Joint Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise proposing to deny Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 14,34,980/- alongwith interest and to impose penalty for the period Feb. 2005 to July 2005. It has been alleged that the appellant availed Cenvat Credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Central Board of Excise and Customs by circular no 146/57/95-CX dtd 12.9.1995 clarified the procedural relaxation regarding the Cenvat Credit on inputs supplied for job worker. It is also relied upon the Board circular No 218/52/96-CX dtd 4.6.1996 regarding the Modvat Credit on transit sale. He relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal as under : a) Aristo Exports vs CCE, Daman 2013(296)ELT.542 (Tri. Ahmd) b) Neptune Stampings vas CCE, Daman 2009(246)ELT.254 (Tri.Ahmd) c) CCE Pondicherry vs Emerald Packaging 2005(191)ELT.169 (Tri.Chennai) d) Mahadev Industries vs CCE, Belgaum 2000(115)ELT.452 (Tribunal) 4. On the other hand, the Ld Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal in the case of M/s Mahavir Industries (supra). 6. Rule 9 of Rules 2004 provides that cenvat credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor, as the case may be, on the basis of an invoice issued by a manufacturer of inputs or capital goods from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the said manufacturer. Rule 3 of the said Rules 2004 provides a manufacturer shall be allowed to take credit the specified duty as mentioned therein, on any input received in the factory of manufacturer. In the present case, the appellant availed credit on the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty paid thereon at the time of clearance by the manufacturers & (c) to record to whom these goods have been despatched. We find that whether these invoices were to the appellants on account of Railways or vice-versa is not in any way clouding the aforesaid three facts. When it is read in conjunction with the agreement between the appellants and the Railways, it is crystal clear that the Railways ordered for the purchase of the Inserts and directed the manufacturer thereof to supply to the appellants for further use in the manufacture of the Sleepers. That it was so received and used in the appellants factory is also not under dispute. Therefore, we find that the principle involved in the decisions cited by the ld. Advocate on this issue as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld that since it was verified that the inputs had been received and used by the factory, Modvat credit had not been denied. In the present set of facts, the linkage is even more clearly established because the invoice did contain the name and address of the appellants as well. In the case of Inder Poly Fabs (P) Ltd. supra, it has been held that since the name of the appellants were shown in the documents, it would establish the link between the goods and the ultimate consignee, i.e. appellants. This exactly is the situation in this case as in each document, the appellants factory address has been specified. Therefore, on this count also, we are of the clearly considered view that Modvat credit cannot be denied to the appellants. 8. In v....