2017 (4) TMI 882

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ced by the Department that the appellants have availed CENVAT credit on two invoices consigned to the appellants but issued in favor of M/s Wanbury Ltd., which is an associate of M/s Bravo Health Care Ltd. M/s Bravo Health Care Ltd., is the loan licensee for manufacture by M/s Wanbury Ltd. The Department entertained the view that since the invoices are issued in the name of M/s Wanbury Ltd., who did not have a loan licencee and the said goods having been consigned in the name of appellant, the credit is not eligible to the appellant. A Show Cause Notice dated 21.06.2012 was issued to the appellants demanding an amount of Rs. 8,77,560/- along with interest and also proposing to impose penalty. After due process of law, the original authority....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Goa [2003 (159) ELT 802 (Tri. - Mumbai)] iv. Rallis India Ltd., Vs. CCE, Aurangabad [2004 (178) ELT 716 (Tri. Mumbai)] v. Crop Health Products Ltd., Vs. CCE, Meerut [1998 (102) ELT 376 (Tribunal)] 4. Against this, the Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the M/s Wanbury has not been issued a loan license for manufacture of the final products using the inputs as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Though it is contended by the appellant that the loan license has been issued in the name of M/s Bravo Health Care Ltd., the invoices are issued in the name of M/s Wanbury Ltd., and consigned to the appellant. That therefore, the credit has been rightly denied. 5. I have heard the submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....doing so he cited certain case laws. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order citing other case law. 3. Sh. Mehta, Ld. Advocate for the appellants refers to Tribunal judgment in the case of Crop Health Products Ltd., Vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 1998 (102) ELT 376 (T)]. In the judgment the appellants were in identical circumstances and the invoices bore name of the loan licensee but not of the actual manufacturer. In that situation the Tribunal held that the omission of the name of the consignee and his address, though not a minor omission, should not disentitle the manufacturer from the benefit of Modvat credit so long as the goods had been received by the manufacturer. 4. Since in this case the actual receipt of the go....