TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He states that the issue is identical as to whether the job worker is entitled to cenvat credit on the strength of bill of entry which is in the name of principal which bears declaration for the appellant to take the cenvat credit. The Learned advocate points out that in that decision, this matter has been decided in their favour and therefore, the same is no more res-integra. 2. Learned Authorised Representative confronted with the situation reiterated the findings of the lower authority. 3. We find that the matter stands covered by the aforesaid decision. The relevant para 4 is reproduced below: "4.1 We find that there is no dispute that the appellant have received the input contained in bill of entry and used in the manufacture of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Credit and hence Proviso to Rule 9(2) cannot be extended to the facts of the present case." 4.2 We find that the adjudicating authority has given elaborate finding based on various judgments however the same has not been rebutted by the revenue. The finding of the original adjudicating authority is reproduced below: "12) I have carefully gone through the present Show Cause Notice dated 08.10.2015, the defence reply and oral as well as additional written submissions made at the time of personal hearing. 13) The assessee is a loan licensee engaged in manufacture of excisable goods viz. Patents and Proprietary (P and P) Medicines for M/s. Zydus Animal Health Lids Division of M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited). The required raw materials a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircular No. 1003/10/2015-CX dated 05.05.2015 are not relevant to this case, as the importer Zydus Animal Health Ltd. is a loan licensee and the purchaser M/s. Ravi Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. is a job worker cum manufacturer of that loan licensee. Hence, no relation of importer and buyer is established between Zydus Animal Health Ltd. and the assessee, as is contained in the Notification / Circular. 17) Further, I would like to discuss the provisions of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which reads as under: "Rule 9. Documents and accounts. (1) The 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 any of the following documents, namely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....instead of endorsed Bill of Entry is to be considered as part of Bill of Entry and Cenvat Credit is admissible. Its relevant paras are reproduced below: "2. Heard, Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Revenue and perused the order of the CESTAT [2009 (235) ELT. 347 (Tri Ahmd.).). The CESTAT, in its order, has clearly observed after referring to Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules (sic) that, credit shall not be denied on the ground that the document does not contain all the particulars required to be contained under these Rules if the document gives details of payment of duty or Service Tax, Description of the Goods, Assessable Value, Name and Address of the factory of the receiver. 2.1 The Tribunal has further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacturer and endorsed for the purpose of availing Cenvat Credit. i) Union of India v/s. Marmagoa Steel Ltd. 2008 (229) E.L.T. 481 (SC) [Held that goods directly sent to manufacturer without its name on Bill of Entry and Cenvat credit allowed once established that goods received are duty paid and are used in the factory for manufacture of final product. ii) Ingersoll Rand (1) Ltd. v/s. CCE-2006 (205) E.L.T. 937 (Tri-Mum.) Held that even when Bill of Entry is in the name of Head Office, Cenvat credit is admissible. iii) Akzo Nobel Coating (India) Ltd. v/s CCE, Bangalore 2013 (290) E.L.T. 108 (Tri-Bang.) (Held that endorsed Bill of Entry is a valid document for availing Cenvat credit) iv) Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v/s.....