2011 (2) TMI 1079 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit denied - zerox copy of the invoices submitted - Held that - It is an admitted fact that the manufacturer of inputs have issued the invoices and the same have been received in the factory of the appellants. It is also an admitted fact that the original invoice issued by the manufacturer was lost during accident. An FIR has been registered against the said accident by the transporter. As relying on UOI Vs. Kataria Wires Ltd. 2007 (1) TMI 183 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT the claim of availment of Cenvat credit cannot be defeated especially when department did not dispute receipt of the goods, their use in the manufacture of final products and duty paid character of input. As this facts are not in dispute, the claim of availment of Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on the strength of Xerox copy of the invoice issued by the manufacturer. In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of CENVAT Credit based on zerox copy of invoice.

Analysis:
1. The appellants appealed against the denial of CENVAT Credit due to the loss of original invoices during transportation of inputs purchased from a PSC. The appellants sought permission to claim credit based on zerox copies of the invoices issued by the manufacturer, which was denied despite filing an indemnity bond.

2. The consultant for the appellants argued that since the goods were received in the factory against a duty paying document and no invoice was issued by the manufacturer, the credit should not be denied as per Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. He cited relevant cases to support his contention.

3. The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that previous Tribunal decisions, including a Larger Bench ruling, have held that credit cannot be claimed based on zerox copies of invoices. The DR argued that the cases cited by the consultant were not applicable to the current situation.

4. After considering the arguments, the judge examined the facts and acknowledged that the manufacturer had issued the original invoices which were lost in the accident. The judge noted that an FIR was registered for the accident. The key issue was whether the appellant could claim credit based on zerox copies of the invoices.

5. Referring to a case where the High Court observed that the claim of CENVAT Credit cannot be defeated if the receipt of goods and duty payment are not disputed, the judge ruled in favor of the appellants. The judge emphasized that since the essential facts were not in dispute, the claim for CENVAT Credit based on zerox copies of the invoice was valid.

6. Following the precedent set by the High Court case, the judge set aside the denial of credit and allowed the claim of the appellants with consequential relief. The judge's decision was based on the principle that if the receipt of goods and duty payment are established, the claim for CENVAT Credit should not be denied solely due to the loss of original invoices.