2017 (3) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - whether appellant is entitle for the Cenvat Credit taken on the strength of photo copy of courier Bill of Entry or otherwise? - Held that - it is not possible for each and every importer to have original Bill of Entry for the reason that this is acceptable position by the department that bill of entry in case of courier is filed consolidated in respect of various importers, if that is so then it is not possible to every importer in a particular of bill of entry to possess the original bill of entry, therefore, credit cannot be denied on the photocopy of the courier bill of entry - both the lower authority have not examined this factual matrix therefore for this purpose matter needs to be remanded - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat Credit based on a photocopy of courier Bill of Entry.
2. Denial of credit for specific inputs not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether an appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit based on a photocopy of a courier Bill of Entry. The adjudicating authority had denied the credit, stating that original duty paying documents were necessary for admissibility. Additionally, a specific amount of credit was denied for inputs like steel doors, frames, gaskets, and paper cartridges, claiming they were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) after the Order-in-Original was unfavorable. The Commissioner rejected the appeal, leading to the appellant's further appeal.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that it is a common practice to file a consolidated bill of entry for various importers, making it impractical for every importer to possess the original Bill of Entry. Therefore, the appellant had availed credit based on a photocopy of the Bill of Entry. The counsel cited a relevant judgment to support this argument. The lack of verification regarding the actual use of the imported goods was highlighted, emphasizing that deeming the goods inadmissible for Cenvat credit without understanding their use was improper.

On the other hand, the Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, maintaining the denial of credit. After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Member (Judicial) found that in the case of Cenvat credit based on a courier Bill of Entry, it was not feasible for every importer to possess the original document due to the nature of consolidated filings. Therefore, denying credit based on a photocopy was deemed unjustified. Regarding the use of the imported goods, it was noted that neither the adjudicating nor appellate authority had examined this aspect, leading to a remand for further adjudication. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment within three months, allowing the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing and submission of additional documents to demonstrate the actual use of the goods. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing a chance for a more thorough review of the case.