2014 (12) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Assessee took credit on the basis of reconstituted bill of entry - appellant did not furnish the duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry duly certified by the Customs with regard to payment of duty - Held that - A reading of the impugned order makes it absolutely clear that the Customs authorities at Chennai have confirmed payment of duty by the appellant at the time of importation of the capital goods. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had received the capital goods and installed and used the same in the manufacture of dutiable final products. In these circumstances, the appellants is rightly entitled for the credit. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower authority - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of credit based on reconstituted bill of entry without Customs certification
2. Belated availment of credit beyond the six-month period
3. Clarification on limitation for availment of credit on capital goods

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerns the Revenue challenging the lower appellate authority's decision to set aside the order allowing credit availed by the respondent based on a reconstituted bill of entry without Customs certification. The Revenue argued that the credit was not in accordance with the law due to the absence of Customs stamp or seal on the reconstituted bill of entry. The Consultant for the respondent countered by stating that the duty payment was confirmed by the Customs authorities, even though the reconstituted bill of entry lacked specific duty amount typing. The Consultant emphasized that the duty liability was discharged and verified with the original bill of entry, justifying the credit availed by the respondent.

2. Another ground raised was the belated availment of credit beyond the six-month period. The Revenue contended that such delayed credit was impermissible. However, the Consultant argued that the limitation of six months for credit availment applied to inputs, not capital goods, citing a Ministry circular for clarification. The Consultant requested the upholding of the lower authority's order based on the discharge of duty liability and the receipt and use of the capital goods by the respondent.

3. Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the Judge found that the Customs authorities had confirmed the duty payment during the importation of the capital goods. It was undisputed that the respondent had received, installed, and used the capital goods for manufacturing dutiable final products. Consequently, the Judge concluded that the respondent was rightfully entitled to the credit. As a result, the Judge found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it, upholding the lower authority's decision.

This judgment clarifies the validity of availing credit based on reconstituted bill of entry, the applicability of the six-month limitation for credit availment on capital goods, and the importance of duty payment confirmation by Customs authorities in justifying credit entitlement.