2013 (12) TMI 816 - AT - Central Excise

Admissibility of Cenvat credit Credit taken on Xerox copy of triplicate Bill of Entry - Certificate issued by Bank - Original Bill of Entry not available Held that - The Facility Notice No. 49/2010 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Zone-II, dated 26.4.2010, in which a procedure is prescribed for taking Cenvat credit in case the EDI Bill of Entry is lost / misplaced / destroyed / mutilated - an importer can approach the authorised Bank with a request to obtain attested/certified copy of the Bill of Entry under which the duty was paid - the appellant has followed the procedure and produced the relevant certificate - Relying upon C.C.E., VAPI vs. MEHTA HWA FUH PLASTICS PVT. LTD. 2013 (1) TMI 527 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - when the receipt of inputs and its final use in the manufacturing activity is not disputed, then the importer cannot be denied the Cenvat credit the Cenvat credit was correctly availed by the appellant Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether Cenvat credit based on Xerox copy of triplicate Bill of Entry is admissible.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a stay application and appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. SRP/100/DMN/2013-14 to determine the admissibility of Cenvat credit based on a Xerox copy of the triplicate Bill of Entry. The appellant argued that although the original Bill of Entry was misplaced, they had the document at the time of claiming the credit. They followed the procedure outlined in Facility Notice No. 49/2010 to obtain a certified copy of the Bill of Entry from the Bank, which was presented to the lower authorities. The appellant relied on a Tribunal judgment in C.C.E., VAPI vs. MEHTA HWA FUH PLASTICS PVT. LTD. to support their claim that if the receipt and use of inputs in manufacturing are not disputed, Cenvat credit cannot be denied.

The Revenue contended that Cenvat credit cannot be availed based on a Bank-issued certificate, citing Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal considered whether Cenvat credit could be allowed in the absence of the original Bill of Entry. The Tribunal referred to Facility Notice No. 49/2010, which provides a procedure for situations where the EDI Bill of Entry is lost, and concluded that the appellant followed the prescribed process and submitted the necessary certificate, justifying the allowance of Cenvat credit.

Additionally, the Tribunal referenced a previous judgment in C.C.E., VAPI vs. MEHTA HWA FUH PLASTICS PVT. LTD., emphasizing that when the receipt and utilization of inputs in manufacturing are established, Cenvat credit should not be withheld. The Tribunal examined various decisions cited by the parties, highlighting the importance of demonstrating the receipt and use of goods for claiming credit. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the appellant correctly availed Cenvat credit, as there was no evidence of input diversion, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit based on the presented evidence and upheld the appeal, emphasizing the importance of establishing the receipt and utilization of inputs in manufacturing to support Cenvat credit claims.