RAYMOND LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Shah, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent.

(2.) The Appellant has challenged the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in regard to the goods found at the factory of the Appellant. According to the revenue, the Appellant is not entitled to any credit on these goods because the name of the manufacturer on the goods is different from the name which is shown on the commercial invoice/packing list of the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal has upheld the contention of the revenue. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Shri Shah, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the entitlement to credit arises upon a legal import of the goods and the Assessee is entitled to credit if the goods have been legally imported and countervailing duty has been paid at the time of entry. He further submits that there is no discrepancy whatsoever between the goods that were found at the factory of the Appellant and the goods referred to in the Bill of Entry and on which countervailing duty has been paid. Admittedly, there is not even a whisper that there was any swapping of goods from the point of entry to the factory. In these circumstances, the learned Counsel submits that the credit could not have been denied to the Appellant on the ground that there is discrepancy between the name of the manufacturer on the goods found at the factory and the name of the manufacturer on the documents. We find that the aforesaid contention deserves consideration.