TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. CCE, Bhopal [2011 (7) TMI 974 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] wherein this Tribunal held that The fact that the job worker has processed the material and sent the intermediate goods manufactured using the inputs following Notification No. 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. It has not been disputed that job work goods received by the appellant, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant - CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - Excise Appeal Nos. 3095 & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the matters were adjudicated which were resulted in denying the cenvat credit . Consequently, the demand of duty was confirmed alongwith interest and penalty was also imposed on the appellant. Against the said orders, the appellant is before us. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is sending goods directly to the job worker on appellant s own account and after processing the goods by the job worker and after further processing, these goods have been sold by the appellant on payment of duty. As appellant has followed the procedure laid-down under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR, 2004, therefore, appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit. The facts of sending the goods to the job worker and the receipt of job worked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V) as evidence for receiving the material in the factory which has been duly noted by the Commissioner. It is pertinent to note that the appellant s factory in Bhopal comes directly under the jurisdiction of Commissioner, Bhopal and, therefore, the finding that in the absence of endorsement in the bill of entry by the International Operations Division, it was not possible to ascertain as to whether the goods covered by the said bill of entry were received and used in the assessee factory cannot be appreciated. 7.2 As regards the material procured from Hindustan Copper Limited, the submissions of the appellant that they were sent directly to M/s Ken Electricals on behalf of BHEL, Bhopal who were undertaking job work for the appellant an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir use in their factory has to be accepted based on the documentary evidence produced by them. The Department has failed to prove that the material was not received in the premises 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 not disputed that the goods have not been received in the appellant factory and has not been utilised in putting put up the plant for manufacture of excisable goods by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
