2016 (2) TMI 555 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of CENVAT Credit on Xerox copy of courier bill of entry - Held that - There is no dispute that the material on which the credit has been taken was imported by the appellant and was used for manufacturing of the product. The objection of the department is that the appellants have not produced the original bill of entry and the photocopy of the courier bill of entry or consolidated courier bill of entry is not admissible for denying credit under Rule 9. Thus hold that the appellant have correctly claimed the CENVAT Credit on the photocopy of the courier bill of entry filed by them and CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on mere technical grounds - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT Credit on Xerox copy of courier bill of entry.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal denying the CENVAT Credit on a Xerox copy of a courier bill of entry. The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, imported components and claimed the credit, which was denied by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The main issue was the admissibility of a courier bill of entry for claiming CENVAT Credit under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that the courier bill of entry was a valid document for clearance of imported goods and that they used the imported inputs in manufacturing the final product. The lower authorities had denied the credit based on the lack of original bill of entry. The Tribunal had to decide whether the photocopy of the courier bill of entry could be accepted for claiming the credit.

The Tribunal considered various judgments, including CCE vs. Fusion Electronics P. Ltd., Controls & Devices Coimbatore P. Ltd., and Macneill engg. Ltd., cited by the appellant's counsel. It was noted that the material for which the credit was claimed was imported and used in manufacturing. The department objected to the lack of original bill of entry and argued that a photocopy of the courier bill of entry was not admissible under Rule 9. However, based on the case law and the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that the appellant correctly claimed the CENVAT Credit on the photocopy of the courier bill of entry. The Tribunal emphasized that the credit should not be denied on technical grounds alone. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside with any necessary relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the CENVAT Credit on the photocopy of the courier bill of entry and emphasizing that technicalities should not be a basis for denying such credits. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the substance of the claim rather than focusing solely on procedural formalities.