2013 (3) TMI 257 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit availed on the basis of photocopies or duplicate copies of the invoices of input service provider - assessee submitted that duplicate copies of the invoices had been issued by the supplier as the original copies have been lost - Held that - As the duplicate copies have not been certified or verified by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officer the same cannot be treated as valid documents and Cenvat credit has been correctly denied. As regards photocopies of the invoices, though Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, does not mention that the invoice/bill or challan has to be the original, if Cenvat credit is allowed on the basis of photocopies without any check, credit can be taken more than once on the basis of the same invoices. In this case, though the appellants pleaded that original copy of the invoice was available and since on the basis of one original copy, several units of the appellant s company have taken proportionate amount of credit and for this reason, the appellant s unit has only the photocopy on its record, from the records it is seen that at no stage the original copy of the invoice was produced. In any case, when during the period of dispute, the facility of distribution of Service tax Cenvat credit by the head office by issuing invoices after registration as Input Service Distributor was available, there is no explanation as to why that facility has not been availed. In view of this, Cenvat credit on the basis of photocopies has been correctly disallowed - against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over Cenvat credit availed on the basis of photocopies/duplicate copies of invoices.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,99,520/- availed by the appellant during a specific period based on either photocopies or duplicate copies of invoices from input service providers. The department contended that the documents used for claiming the credit did not meet the requirements of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, leading to a show cause notice for denial of the credit along with interest. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the demand for Cenvat credit, along with interest and penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, specifically contesting the denial of Cenvat credit based on photocopies or duplicate invoices.

The appellant's counsel argued that in some instances, credit was taken based on duplicate copies of invoices due to loss or misplacement of originals. Additionally, in cases where photocopies were used, as only one original invoice was available and shared among multiple factories, the original copies were not present at the unit. The counsel cited judgments from various High Courts and a Tribunal to support the allowance of Cenvat credit based on verified photocopies or attested Xerox copies. The departmental representative supported the impugned order, emphasizing the need for proper verification of documents to prevent multiple claims based on the same invoices.

Upon considering the submissions and evidence, the judge referred to Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, highlighting the requirement for valid documents issued by input service providers or distributors to claim Cenvat credit. It was noted that during the disputed period, the appellant's head office was not registered as an input service distributor, leading to issues with the documentation process. The judge found that while duplicate copies of invoices were not certified or verified by the Central Excise Officer, photocopies of invoices could potentially lead to multiple claims based on the same document, warranting the denial of Cenvat credit in this case. The judge concluded that the denial of Cenvat credit based on photocopies and duplicate copies was justified, dismissing the appeal accordingly.