2018 (8) TMI 1170 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - the Bill of Entry did not bear endorsement of proper office of Customs - Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Held that - Under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 there is no such requirement of endorsement on the Bill of Entry. Further Bill of Entry is also a specified documents for taking Cenvat credit - the appellant has rightly taken Cenvat credit on the basis of endorsement on Bill of Entry in absence of endorsement by the proper office of Customs - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Validity of Bill of Entry endorsement for Cenvat credit under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD considered a case where the issue revolved around the validity of the Bill of Entry endorsement for claiming Cenvat credit under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant-assessee had received capital goods and inputs endorsed in the name of another entity, which were later diverted to the appellant. The department objected to the credit, citing a violation of Rule 9. However, it was established that the goods were duty paid and used for the appellant's business purposes, with no dispute on these facts.

The appellant's counsel argued that Rule 9(2) requirements were met in their case, emphasizing that the Cenvat Credit Rules do not mandate an endorsement on the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal examined Rule 9(2) which specifies the conditions for taking Cenvat credit, noting that if a document contains details of duty payable and other prescribed particulars, the credit can be allowed even without full particulars. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant rightly availed Cenvat credit based on the Bill of Entry endorsement, despite the absence of endorsement by the Customs office. Consequently, the appeal by the appellant-assessee was allowed, and the Miscellaneous Application for Early Hearing was also disposed of.