2015 (7) TMI 1228 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial on the ground that photocopy of the courier Bill of Entry is not a proper document in terms of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Since, the Courier Bill of Entry has been issued by the courier agency in favour of various parties/consignees, there was no scope for issuing the original invoice in favour of each and every party - since those photocopies of the courier bill of entry issued in favor of the consignees are duly authenticated by the authorities posted at the port of import, the authenticity of the said documents cannot be doubted and credit cannot be denied for the reason that the same is not a prescribed document for availment of Cenvat credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat credit based on photocopy of courier Bill of Entry
- Validity of photocopy as a proper document under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Authentication of courier document by Customs Authorities
- Applicability of cited Tribunal decisions
- Interpretation of Circular of C.B.E. & C. regarding Cenvat credit

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant due to the photocopy of the courier Bill of Entry not being considered a proper document under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, represented by Ms. Sukriti Das, argues that the courier document, authenticated by Customs Authorities at the International Airport, should suffice for claiming credit. It is contended that as the original document cannot be issued to each consignee, the photocopy should be acceptable, especially when the duty paid character and utilization of the goods are not in dispute. The appellant relies on various Tribunal decisions to support their stance.

In response, Shri Devender Singh for the Revenue maintains that without statutory recognition of the photocopy as a valid document for Cenvat credit, the denial of benefit is justified. He cites a Circular clarifying that credit is permissible only on the normal Bill of Entry, not on the courier Bill of Entry photocopy. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal examines the issue. It acknowledges that the goods imported via M/s. DHL Express Services incurred additional duty of customs and notes that the photocopies of the courier Bill of Entry, authenticated by port authorities, cannot be doubted for authenticity. The Tribunal finds precedent in the cited decisions, where Cenvat credit was allowed on similar grounds, emphasizing the special category of imports.

Ultimately, the Tribunal rules in favor of the appellant, allowing Cenvat credit on the Courier Bill of Entry issued by the courier agency. The decision is based on the previous Co-ordinate Bench ruling in similar cases, supporting the appellant's entitlement to the credit. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed in favor of the appellant.