2008 (8) TMI 354 - AT - Central Excise

Credit invoice - In the present case as the original/duplicate invoice have been lost in transit, the appellants have availed Cenvat credit on the basis of zerox copy of the triplicate copy of the invoice, duly attested by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent at the supplier s end Held that, if the original/duplicate invoices were lost by the assessee, the same would not mean denial of the substantive benefit of Modvat credit to the assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)
- Availment of Cenvat credit based on attested zerox copy of triplicate invoice
- Loss of original/duplicate invoices and its impact on Modvat credit

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute revolved around the availment of Cenvat credit based on an attested zerox copy of the triplicate invoice. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the credit despite the loss of the original/duplicate invoices. The Tribunal noted that there was no finding that the duty was not paid by the input supplier, and the inputs were received and used in the manufacture of the final product, which was cleared after duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized that denying the substantive benefit of Modvat credit due to the loss of documents would not be just. The Tribunal agreed that reliance on the attested Xerox copy, authenticated by the Range Superintendent of the supplier's end, was acceptable to prove duty payment and receipt of goods. The Tribunal also cited precedent decisions to support its stance, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal highlighted that while a Xerox copy alone should not be the basis for allowing credit, efforts made by the assessee to authenticate the copy and establish duty payment and receipt of goods should be considered. The loss of original/duplicate invoices should not result in the denial of credit, especially when the duty payment and receipt of goods are substantiated. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of not penalizing the assessee disproportionately for procedural irregularities, especially when the substantive requirements for credit availment are met. The Tribunal's decision aligned with previous rulings, indicating consistency in the approach to such cases. The cross-objections filed by the respondent were also addressed in the Tribunal's decision, which disposed of them along with the main appeal.