2007 (9) TMI 252 - AT - Central Excise

Credit denied on ground that invoices were raised in contractors name - disputed bills have come in the names of the contractors but most of these bills indicated that the goods were on account of the appellant - some of the bills indicated that the supplies were meant for the contractors with care of address of the appellant factory - not disputed that the goods have been received and utilized in the appellant factory therefore credit is not deniable

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat credit on invoices raised in the name of contractors
- Ownership of capital goods and entitlement to Cenvat credit

Analysis:
Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat credit on invoices raised in the name of contractors
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, set up an additional plant to manufacture "Copper Cathode" by engaging different contractors for various works. The Original Authority denied Cenvat credit for 19 invoices raised in the name of contractors, amounting to Rs.3,74,755, and imposed a penalty of Rs.30,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this denial. However, the appellant argued that all materials procured by contractors were ultimately meant for the plant used in manufacturing excisable goods. The appellant contended that ownership of capital goods is irrelevant for claiming credit, especially when the goods were paid for by the appellant and used in their manufacturing process. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their claim for entitlement to Cenvat credit in such situations. The Tribunal found that most disputed bills indicated the goods were for the appellant company, and since the goods were received and utilized in the manufacturing process, there was no justification for denying Cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

Issue 2: Ownership of capital goods and entitlement to Cenvat credit
The appellant's advocate argued that in sophisticated manufacturing activities like setting up a plant, different contractors were engaged for various works, but all materials were ultimately used for manufacturing excisable goods. The advocate emphasized that ownership of capital goods is not crucial for claiming Cenvat credit, especially when the appellant paid for the goods and used them in manufacturing. Additionally, the advocate pointed out that a Tribunal judgment cited by the Departmental Representative had been overruled by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's arguments and found that the ownership of capital goods did not impact the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit, especially when the goods were utilized in manufacturing excisable goods. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of the actual utilization of goods in the manufacturing process over the technical ownership aspect.