2016 (12) TMI 581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt was availing cenvat credit on the input, input service and capital goods. During the impugned period the appellant is procuring inputs from the market and sending the same directly to the job worker from supplier s place and availing cenvat credit. The invoices are showing the goods were consigned to the job worker s premises on account of the appellant. For the imported goods, although the goods were received by the job worker on account of the appellant. The job worker sent job worked goods to the appellant which are used by the appellants for manufacture of final products which were cleared on payment of duty. In some cases although the name of the appellant is written on the invoices, but Chindwara where the appellant is located is m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the sides, we find that the facts that the goods have been sent directly to the job worker on the instruction of the appellant by the supplier or to the job worker s premises from the port on account of the appellant and job worked goods have been received by the appellant after processing are not in dispute, therefore, we are of the view that as the goods have been received by the appellant after processing on job work, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of BHEL (supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: "7.1 Plain reading of the order of the Commissioner clearly indicates that the bill of entry was in the name of the appellant only. It did not mentio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 214/86 has not been refuted. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the transport of material directly to the job worker s premises to avoid payment of extra period and same time, cannot lead to denial of credit". Further, in the case of Protector & Gamble (supra) this Tribunal again examined the issue and observed as under: "5. In this case, I find that the invoices were issued in the name of M/s Standard Surfactants on account of M/s Protector and Gamble Home Products Ltd. M/s Standard Surfactants has not availed cenvat credit and after processing the goods, they sent the goods to the respondents. The respondent are rightly entitled to avail cenvat credit in this case. As the invoice clearly show that the goods h....