9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 610 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - credit was availed on the basis of the quadruplicate copy of the invoice which was found in the appellant s record - Held that - It is on record that the appellant has lost the duplicate copy of the invoice which was to accompany the goods, from the supplier. However, after taking up the matter with the supplier, they have produced quadruplicate copy of the invoice which evidences supply of inputs. To this effect appellant submitted an affidavit also on record regarding the receipt of the inputs. In the case of Rathi Special Steels Ltd. 2017 (1) TMI 1482 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the Tribunal has expressed the opinion that if the primary evidence is not given, then secondary evidence is admissible as per the proviso to Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Availability of cenvat credit based on quadruplicate copy of invoice.
Analysis: The appeal in this case was against the Order-in-Appeal No. 156/2012 dated 17.10.2012, concerning the availability of cenvat credit based on the quadruplicate copy of the invoice. The appellant, a manufacturer of various products, procured inputs from M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) but faced objections from the Department regarding the availed cenvat credit due to the absence of the duplicate copy of the invoice accompanying the goods. The Department contended that the credit was based on the quadruplicate copy of the invoice found in the appellant's records. Both lower authorities had denied the cenvat credit, leading to the filing of the present appeal. During the proceedings, the appellant's consultant explained that although the duplicate copy of the invoice was lost, they obtained and presented the quadruplicate copy after liaising with the supplier. Additionally, the appellant submitted an affidavit confirming the receipt of the inputs. The consultant argued that previous Tribunal decisions supported the appellant's entitlement to cenvat credit based on the quadruplicate copy in the absence of the original duplicate copy. The consultant referenced cases like Rathi Special Steels Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-I 2017 (352) ELT 219 (Tri. Del.) and Cords Cable Industries Limited vs. CCE, Jaipur-I 2015 (320) ELT 155 (Tri. Del.) to support this claim. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the lower authority's decision, asserting that the quadruplicate copy of the invoice was not a valid document for claiming cenvat credit. After considering both sides and examining the records, it was noted that the main dispute revolved around the permissibility of cenvat credit based on the quadruplicate copy of the invoice. Despite the loss of the duplicate copy, the appellant managed to obtain the quadruplicate copy from the supplier, supported by an affidavit confirming the receipt of the inputs. The presiding Member referred to the case laws cited by the appellant's consultant, emphasizing that previous Tribunal decisions allowed cenvat credit based on secondary evidence, such as an extra copy of the invoice, in the absence of the original document. Notably, the Tribunal's decision in Rathi Special Steels Ltd. case highlighted the admissibility of secondary evidence under the proviso to Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, the impugned order denying the cenvat credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, aligning with the precedents established in earlier cases.
|
