COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. MAJESTIC AUTO LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides and perused the record.

(2.) THE Respondent availed Cenvat credit on inputs/capital goods on the basis of the invoices, wherein, the suppliers mentioned the brand name "Hero Puch" or "Hero Motors" of the Respondent's company and their address. The Adjudicating Authority denied credit on the ground that the invoices do not bear the Respondent's name. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order.

(3.) I find that there is no dispute that the goods in question were received by the Respondent and were used in the manufacture of the final product and duly recorded in the Register. The Central Board of Excise & Customs vide -CX, dated 23 -2 -1999 clarified that in terms of sub -Rule (11) in Rule 57G and sub -Rule (13) of Rule 57T of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise may allow the credit on duty paid on inputs/capital goods in minor procedural lapses in filing the declaration or in the invoices/documents, based on which credit is to be taken. However, the Assistant Commissioner should ensure inputs/capital goods have suffered duty and are being used/are to be used in the process of manufacture. In the present case, there is no dispute that the inputs/capital goods have suffered duty and were used in the manufacture of final products. In any event, brand name of the Respondent with their address instead of Company's name in the invoices establishes ownership of the goods. So, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly allowed the credit. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.