2017 (9) TMI 1310 - AT - Central Excise

Credit of CVD - duty paying invoices - Respondent failed to produce the original/duplicate/triplicate copies of the Bill of Entry amounting to Countervailing Duty credit of ₹ 17,28,847/- - Held that - It is contended by the Revenue in their appeal that the respondent had not produced any evidence before the Adjudicating Authority to prove that the inputs were actually received in the factory of the respondent - the Revenue had not disputed the above finding categorically. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue on this issue is without any substance. CENVAT credit - P.P. Woven Sacks which is similar to the final product manufactured by the Respondent - Held that - there is no bar to avail Cenvat Credit on receipt of the duty paying goods under Rule 16(2) of the Rules, 2002. Therefore, there is no force in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue on this issue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to produce original/duplicate/triplicate copies of Bill of Entry for availing Countervailing Duty credit
2. Availment of Cenvat Credit on goods similar to final product
3. Availment of credit on the basis of an invalid invoice

Issue 1: Failure to produce original/duplicate/triplicate copies of Bill of Entry for availing Countervailing Duty credit
The case involved M/s. Royal Touch Fablon Pvt. Ltd. failing to produce essential documents regarding the import and receipt of inputs in their factory, leading to a disallowance of Cenvat Credit by the Adjudicating Authority. However, the Commissioner(Appeals) found in favor of the Respondent after they submitted original copies of Bill of Entries, transport documents, supplier's invoices, and bank statements as proof. The Revenue's appeal lacked substance as they did not dispute the findings, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal.

Issue 2: Availment of Cenvat Credit on goods similar to final product
The Respondent availed Cenvat Credit on P.P. Woven Sacks, similar to their final product, under Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner(Appeals) noted that the Respondent had valid records to support their credit availment, and there was no prohibition on claiming credit under the mentioned rule. Consequently, the Revenue's grounds for appeal on this issue were deemed without merit.

Issue 3: Availment of credit on the basis of an invalid invoice
The final issue revolved around the Respondent availing credit based on an invalid invoice worth &8377; 21,894. The Respondent acknowledged the error and rectified it by debiting the amount with interest as highlighted during an audit. Notably, the Revenue did not contest this fact. The Commissioner(Appeals) considered all evidence and legal precedents, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeals due to the lack of substantial grounds.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, through the judgment delivered by Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member(Judicial), upheld the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals) in favor of the Respondent, dismissing all appeals filed by the Revenue. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing necessary documentation, complying with rules for credit availment, and rectifying errors promptly to avoid penalties or disallowances.