2016 (4) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit denied - valid Cenvatable document - Held that - As find that the respondent have initially availed Cenvat Credit mentioning the details of the Bill of Entry. Subsequently on pointing out by the audit, they produced the invoices issued by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. the invoice issued by an importer is a valid Cenvatable document. Therefore, merely by mentioning the wrong details of the document credit cannot be denied, particularly when the valid duty paying documents i.e. invoice was available with the respondent. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after calling the report from the Jurisdictional Officer confirmed that the receipt, issue, use of the imported goods on which credit was taken and production out of the said input is not under dispute. In this fact, do not see any reason why the Cenvat Credit should be denied. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. SB/89/Th-I/10
- Availment of Cenvat Credit based on photocopy of Bill of Entry
- Denial of Cenvat Credit by adjudicating authority
- Validity of invoice issued by importer as a Cenvatable document
- Interpretation of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. SB/89/Th-I/10 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I, where the appeal of the respondent was allowed by setting aside the Order-in-Original No. 17/MP-01/Th-I/2009. The issue revolved around the respondent availing Cenvat Credit based on a photocopy of the Original Bill of Entry supplied by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. The audit party pointed out that the credit was availed on an invalid document, leading to a show cause notice proposing denial of the credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, prompting the respondent to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal, resulting in the Revenue challenging the decision.

The Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) argued that the respondent initially availed credit based on an invalid document, i.e., a photocopy of the Bill of Entry, and later tried to justify it by referring to invoices issued by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the invoice issued by the importer is a valid Cenvatable document as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The counsel supported their argument by citing various judgments that favored the respondent's case.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the tribunal found that the respondent had initially mentioned the details of the Bill of Entry while availing Cenvat Credit. However, upon audit pointing out the discrepancy, the respondent produced valid invoices issued by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. The tribunal concluded that merely mentioning incorrect details of the document should not lead to denial of credit, especially when valid duty-paying invoices were available with the respondent. The tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, emphasizing that the judgments cited by the respondent's counsel supported their case. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent.