2017 (1) TMI 754 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - documents and invoices for availing credit - attested copy of the Bill of Entry - whether the credit availed on the basis of documents which were not produced for verification, the invoices are addressed to the bonded premises and not relating to the manufacturing unit and on the basis of xerox copies of invoices, is justified? - Held that - this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority for verification of the documents in the light of the judgment BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHOPAL 2004 (9) TMI 203 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI where it was held that the Bill of Entry attested by the Customs Officer is a valid document for claiming cenvat credit and further that the original documents which are in possession of the appellant need to be verified by the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding Order-in-Original and remanding for document verification.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat Credit
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing elevators, faced objections on credit availed based on unverified input documents, invoices addressed to bonded premises, and xerox copies. Appellant reversed credit under protest post-audit, followed by a show-cause notice invoking longer limitation period. Appellant contested, citing technical issues cannot negate substantive right to cenvat credit. Referring to precedent, appellant argued fulfillment of conditions for credit eligibility.

Issue 2: Validity of Documents for Credit
Appellant argued attested copies of Bill of Entry are valid for credit, supported by tribunal decisions. Appellant highlighted the importance of proper documentation for credit availment, emphasizing the admissibility of certified copies of Bill of Entry. Appellant referenced circulars and case laws to support the validity of documents produced for credit claim.

Issue 3: Remand for Verification
After hearing both parties, the judge noted discrepancies in document verification and credit denial. The judge acknowledged the appellant's possession of necessary documents and the need for verification by the original authority. Relying on legal precedents, the judge remanded the case for verification of documents, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation for cenvat credit claims. The judge allowed the appeal by remand to ensure fair verification of documents.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the denial of cenvat credit due to document discrepancies and the importance of proper documentation for credit claim validity. The remand order highlighted the necessity of verifying original documents to ascertain credit eligibility, emphasizing adherence to legal provisions and precedents in cenvat credit matters.