COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM Vs. REC ISPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revenues appeal arises from the Order -in -Appeal No. 10/2006 dated 29 -5 -2006 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the assessees plea for granting Cenvat credit and confirmed the Order -in -Original, passed by the Assistant Commissioner. We have noticed that both the authorities have decided the case in the asseessees favour. The assessee has received the goods from M/s. SAIL through registered Dealer in the name of M/s. A.S. Steel Traders. Since M/s. A.S. Steel Traders were registered dealers who had supplied the goods, the invoices were issued in their name and not in the assessees name. Hence the Department has proceeded to reject the Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,13,757/ -. Both the authorities have noted that M/s. SAIL has issued the invoices to the registered dealer who had supplied the goods and have held that the assessee is eligible for passing on the Cenvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the Tribunal rulings rendered in the case of AEGIS Chemical Inds. Ltd. [1999 (106) E.L.T. 492 (Tri.)] and British Physical Laboratories [1994 (74) E.L.T. 593 (T)J wherein in an identical situation, the Cenvat credit was extended to the assessee. The Revenues grievance is that the invoice does not cover the assessees name and hence, the Cenvat credit is required to be denied.

(2.) THE learned SDR prays for reversal of the order while the learned Counsel submits that there was no irregular availment of the Cenvat credit and prays for dismissal of the Revenues appeal.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We notice from the Order -in -Original that the Assistant Commissioner has noted that the show cause notice was issued based on the facts that the assessee had passed on the credit based on the invoices issued by M/s. SAIL in the name of M/s. A.S. Steel Traders who were registered dealers and they were the consignee of the goods. The facts were verified by the Range Superintendent and issued Annexure D verification certificate and the concerned Range Superintendent has confirmed the duty payment in respect of the invoices mentioned in the show cause notice. The Assistant Commissioner was duly satisfied about the duty paying nature of the goods and the invoice containing the assessees name as consignee. In view of the verification done by the Range Superintendent about the duty paying nature of the documents, we find that there is no merit in the Revenues appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the Tribunal rulings while confirming the Order -in -Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.