2015 (9) TMI 1549 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit of CVD - credit availed on the basis of photocopy of courier bill of entry - whether courier bill of entry is a valid document for clearance of any imported goods u/r 9 of CCR, 2004? - Held that - when the courier agency has been permitted to file common bill of entry on behalf of several importers, obviously all such importers cannot be given original documents, and as such, production of photocopies of bill of entry cannot be denied with the benefit of cenvat credit - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against allowing cenvat credit based on photocopy of courier bill of entry.

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed the order allowing cenvat credit based on a photocopy of a courier bill of entry, arguing that it is not a prescribed document under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They cited a Circular stating that cenvat credit is not permissible on such documents. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reasoned that the appellant was eligible for the credit. The Commissioner relied on Tribunal decisions where it was established that when a courier agency files a common bill of entry for multiple importers, denying cenvat credit based on photocopies would be unjust. The details of each importer consignee are mentioned in the bill of entry, and since the customs have prescribed a procedure for filing, the credit cannot be denied. The bill of entry in question listed the present appellants as consignees, endorsed by the courier service, and the receipt and utilization of the goods were not disputed by the Central Excise Department, leading to the conclusion that the cenvat credit should not be denied.

The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals) order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The judgment emphasized that the photocopy of the courier bill of entry was sufficient for granting cenvat credit, especially considering the practicalities of importing procedures and the endorsements on the document. The decision highlighted the importance of ensuring fairness in allowing cenvat credit based on the specific circumstances of the case, where the essential details were present in the photocopy and the goods' receipt and utilization were confirmed. The judgment ultimately upheld the eligibility of the appellant for the cenvat credit based on the provided documentation, despite the Revenue's objections and the Circular cited.