2011 (1) TMI 1311 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Eligibility of credit based on lost duplicate invoice and eligibility of credit taken after six months from the date of relevant documents.

Eligibility of credit based on lost duplicate invoice:
The dispute focused on the appellant's claim for credit of &8377; 96,048 based on an original invoice due to the loss of the duplicate copy. The appellant informed the Assistant Commissioner promptly about the lost duplicate invoice and utilized the goods for the intended purpose. The advocate argued that denial of credit without evidence of non-receipt of goods or duty payment was unjustified, citing relevant tribunal cases. The department contended that credit could only be taken based on original invoices if the loss of the duplicate was proven to the Assistant Commissioner's satisfaction. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's explanation, notification to the Assistant Commissioner, and compliance with Rule 57G(6) warranted credit approval, as no evidence suggested non-receipt or non-duty payment.

Eligibility of credit taken after six months from the date of relevant documents:
The second issue concerned the denial of credit amounting to &8377; 4,46,654 taken after six months from the date of relevant documents, despite the goods being received and entered in the Cenvat account within the specified time. The advocate argued that the delay in taking credit was a clerical error and not deliberate, citing a tribunal case to support the claim. The department relied on Rule 57G(5) to oppose the delayed credit. The Tribunal noted that the goods were received and accounted for within the time limit, with the delay attributed to a clerical mistake. Relying on a precedent where credit was allowed for goods received within the timeframe, the Tribunal deemed the denial of credit unjustified. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.