2018 (2) TMI 1172 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - Rule 9 of the CCR 2004 - denial on the ground that photocopy of the courier bill of entry is not a proper document in terms of Rule 9 of CCR - Held that - the photocopy of courier bill of entry issued by the courier agency has been duly notarized and attested as true copies by the courier agency in favour of the appellant who has taken the cenvat credit on the basis of those consolidated courier bill of entry - it is not in dispute that the goods were imported through courier agency. Since the courier bill of entry has been issued by the courier agency in favour of various parties/consignees, there was no scope for issuing the original invoices in favour of each and every party - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of cenvat credit based on photocopy of courier bill of entry
- Contravention of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Confirmation of demand, interest, and penalty by adjudicating authority
- Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent dismissal
- Sustainability of impugned order in light of judicial precedents

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order denying cenvat credit to the appellant due to the use of photocopies of courier bills of entry, deemed improper under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing readymade garments, availed credit amounting to ?28,25,309 on such photocopies from May 2011 to February 2013. The authorities alleged contravention of Rule 9, asserting that the appellant utilized credit on ineligible documents without declaring it to the Department, leading to evasion of duty. A show-cause notice was issued, resulting in the confirmation of demand, interest under Rule 14, and penalty under Rule 15(2) along with Section 11AC by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

During the hearing, the appellant contended that the impugned order lacked legal sustainability, citing binding judicial precedents supporting the acceptance of photocopies of courier bills of entry for cenvat credit. The appellant argued that the denial was based on technicalities and that the issue had been settled in favor of the assessee by various Tribunal and High Court decisions. The appellant referenced specific cases to support their argument. Conversely, the respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

After evaluating the arguments, the Tribunal found that the photocopies of courier bills of entry, duly notarized and attested by the courier agency, were acceptable as true copies for availing cenvat credit. It was noted that the goods were imported through a courier agency, making it impractical to issue original invoices to each party. Relying on the precedent set by the Precision Electronics Ltd. case, the Tribunal concluded that authenticated photocopies of courier bills of entry were valid for cenvat credit purposes. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable in law and was set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The order was dictated in open court on 18/12/2017.