2014 (2) TMI 1056 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - delay in availing credit - Department has denied the CENVAT credit to the appellants on the ground that the bills of entry are in the names of ABB Ltd. and original of which are not available - Held that - Rule 9(1)(a)(ii) that any invoice issued for importer is admissible documents for CENVAT credit. In the present case, the appellants are having importer s invoices showing the amount of duty on which they are seeking CENVAT credit. I, therefore, find no reason in denying the CENVAT credit to the appellants on the basis of the importer invoices. As regards second ground of denying credit on ground of delay in taking credit, there is no time-frame mentioned in the CENVAT Credit Rules in availing the CENVAT credit. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the CENVAT credit on the ground of time also - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of CENVAT credit based on missing original bills of entry and being in the name of a different entity.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs (Appeals-I). The issue revolved around the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 9,62,092/- on goods imported by M/s. ABB Ltd. due to missing original bills of entry and being in ABB Ltd.'s name. The Department contended that without the original bills of entry, the appellants were not entitled to the credit. The appellants challenged this denial, leading to the current appeal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Member (T) analyzed Rule 9(1)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which specifies the documents on the basis of which credit can be allowed. The rule includes an invoice issued by an importer as an admissible document for CENVAT credit. In this case, the appellants possessed importer's invoices reflecting the duty amount for which they sought credit. The Member found no valid reason to deny the credit based on importer invoices. Additionally, regarding the second ground of denial related to a delay in taking credit, the Member noted that the CENVAT Credit Rules do not prescribe a specific time frame for availing the credit. Consequently, there was no justification to reject the credit on the basis of timing. Therefore, the Member concluded that the Order-in-Appeal was unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

In the final ruling, the Member pronounced that the denial of CENVAT credit to the appellants based on missing original bills of entry and being in the name of a different entity was unjustified. The Member highlighted the admissibility of importer invoices as per Rule 9(1)(a)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and emphasized the absence of a specified time frame for availing credit. As a result, the appeal was allowed, overturning the previous decision and granting the appellants the entitled CENVAT credit amount.