9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. Shri Ravi Ragahavan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is filed by the Revenue. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder. During the period February 2005 to May, 2005, the respondent availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,10,492/- on the strength of invoices consigned in the name of M/s. Standar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to avail the Cenvat credit. 3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that in the invoices, the name of the consignee was shown as M/s. Standard Surfactants Ltd. who is a job worker of the appellant and in fact, these invoices were actually received in their premises and M/s. Standard Surfactants Ltd. the job worker has not availed Cenvat credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry. It is not disputed that the goods have been received in the appellant-factory and has been utilized in putting up the plant for manufacture of excisable goods by the appellant-company. Therefore, there is no justification for denial of the Cenvat credit and accordingly, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside." Hence the appeal is liable to be rejected. 4.Heard both sides. 5.&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises of the respondent as claimed by them. The credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that the name of the consignee shown in the invoice is M/s. Standard Surfactants Ltd. In the case of Swill Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal has held that when the invoice indicated their goods were on account of appellant company and some of which indicated that the supplies were meant for contractor. It is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
