2017 (8) TMI 542 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - credit denied on the ground that the appellant has not been able to produce the relevant documents which are required as per Rule 9 of CCR - Held that - the authorities below have denied the cenvat credit on highly technical ground - reliance has been placed in the case of PHILIPS INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA 2005 (2) TMI 399 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , where it has been held that the credit can be availed on the basis of photocopy of the courier Bill of Entry after the receipt of the input and its utilization in the manufacturing process is not disputed - this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority for verification of the documents which the appellant may produce in support of his submission - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Denial of credit under Cenvat Credit Rules - Failure to produce relevant documents - Violation of principles of natural justice - Denial of credit on technical grounds - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The appellant filed two appeals challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) denying the appeals and rejecting the appellant's claims. The main issue in both appeals was the denial of credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant argued that the impugned orders were unsustainable as they did not consider the facts and evidence properly, failed to apply binding judicial precedents, and did not follow principles of natural justice. The appellant contended that the authorities had denied credit without verifying relevant documents, and the Order-in-Original had exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their position, emphasizing that credit could be availed based on photocopies of documents. Additionally, the appellant argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation and the imposition of penalties.

Upon hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Judicial Member found that the denial of credit was primarily due to the appellant's inability to produce required documents as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant claimed to possess original copies of invoices and bills of entry, some of which were photocopies that could be verified by Customs. The Judicial Member noted that the denial of credit was on technical grounds, contrary to precedents allowing credit based on photocopies when the receipt and utilization of inputs were not in dispute. Consequently, the Judicial Member decided to remand the case back to the original authority for verification of documents the appellant might produce, directing a fresh decision considering the submissions and legal precedents cited by the appellant. The impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded for a new order in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of following legal principles, verifying relevant documents, and applying precedents in decisions related to Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The decision to remand the case for further consideration aimed to ensure a fair assessment of the appellant's entitlement to credit, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and adherence to legal standards in such matters.