2007 (3) TMI 103 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Question arises whether the appellant is liable to avail cenvat credit on the basis of photocopy of triplicate copy of the invoice - Held that appellant liable for cenvat credit

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat credit based on photocopy of triplicate copy of invoice.

Analysis:
The case revolved around the admissibility of Cenvat credit based on the photocopy of the triplicate copy of the invoice. The appellant, a manufacturer of Bi-pin caps, had availed Cenvat credit in March 2003 using photocopies of Invoice Nos. 867 and 868 dated 30th September 2002, as the original and duplicate copies were lost in transit. The appellant requested attested copies from the Range Officer, which were verified by the Range Superintendent of the supplier. However, the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant argued that the credit was availed on photocopies duly attested by the Central Excise Superintendent, and the Range Superintendent verified the documents. They contended that the inputs were duty paid, used in manufacturing final products, and properly recorded. The appellant also presented evidence of receiving the inputs through octroi slips, GRs, and transport Challan No. ST-A, asserting that Cenvat credit should not be denied. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their position.

On the other hand, the respondent, represented by the learned DR, maintained the stance of the Commissioner (Appeals), arguing that there was no provision for availing Cenvat credit based on photocopies of triplicate invoices. They highlighted the requirements under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 for availing Modvat credit and emphasized that Cenvat credit rules allowed credit based on any copy of the invoice, not specifically photocopies of triplicate copies.

After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the Range Superintendent had verified the documents supporting the appellant's Cenvat credit claim. Citing a precedent involving a similar situation, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to avail the credit based on the certified photocopies of the invoices. Therefore, the impugned order disallowing the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the verification conducted by the Range Superintendent and the precedent supporting the admissibility of Cenvat credit based on certified photocopies of invoices. The judgment underscored the importance of proper documentation and verification in determining the eligibility for Cenvat credit, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the presented evidence and legal precedents.