2015 (8) TMI 1057 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying document - photo copy of the original invoice/triplicate copy of bill of entry - Whether on the facts and circumstances, the modvat credit can be taken on the basis of the photo-stat copy of BOE - Held that - there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the goods in question were not received under the cover of the relevant documents and that the goods were duty paid. The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division-III, NOIDA has also not disputed the duty paid character of the goods and the fact that these were received in the factory for intended purpose under the cover of relevant documents. The case of the department is that the triplicate copy of bill of entry as required under Clause (c) of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 57G could not be subsequently produced by the assessee for defacement. - Since the triplicate copy of the bill of entry was misplaced and, as such, the assessee obtained from the bank the exchange control copy of the relevant bill of entry and filed the same along with various other documents. He also executed an indemnity in favour of the Central Excise department to the extent of Modvat Credit availed. The said authenticated exchange control copy of the bill of entry obtained by the assessee from the bank could have been easily verified by the authorities. It is not the case of the appellant that the said document was not verifiable. No credit under Sub Rule (2) shall be taken by the manufacturer, unless the inputs are received in the factory under the cover of any of the specified documents. In the present set of facts it is undisputed that the inputs were received in the factory under the cover of a triplicate copy of the bill of entry which was subsequently misplaced. The Tribunal in order 2004 (2) TMI 256 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI has recorded a finding of fact that the specified copy of bill of entry and the invoices were misplaced after the receipt of the goods in the factory. - no merit in the present appeal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether modvat credit can be taken based on a photocopy of the bill of entry.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that modvat credit was wrongly allowed based on a photocopy of the original invoice. They cited Rule 57G (3) of the Central Excise Rules, stating that modvat credit was not admissible.

2. The respondent explained that the goods were received with all necessary documents, including the triplicate copy of the bill of entry. When the triplicate copy was misplaced, the respondent obtained the exchange control copy from the bank and provided other supporting documents. They argued that the goods were received and used as intended, and the duty paid nature was not disputed.

3. The Court noted that the goods were initially received with all relevant documents, but the triplicate copy of the bill of entry was lost. The department issued a show cause notice demanding modvat credit repayment due to the missing document. The Tribunal allowed the credit, emphasizing that the goods were received and used as intended, supported by various documents.

4. The Tribunal's findings highlighted that the goods were received under valid documents, and the duty paid nature was not in question. The appellant's contention was that without the triplicate copy of the bill of entry, modvat credit should not have been allowed. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument based on the circumstances of the case.

5. Rule 57G (3) specifies the required documents for taking credit, including a triplicate copy of the bill of entry. The Court observed that in this case, the goods were received with the necessary documents, but the triplicate copy was lost later. The Tribunal's decision to allow the credit was upheld based on these facts.

6. The Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit, ruling in favor of the respondent. The judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the modvat credit based on the circumstances of the case.