2022 (4) TMI 726 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - import of capital goods - project import regulation - period February, 2006 to April, 2007 - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the appellant has imported the machinery vide seven bills of entry and the same was initially cleared provisional, on payment of the applicable duties and thereafter it is further evident from the record that the machinery/ parts have been installed in the factory of production, as verified by the certificate issued by the Range Superintendent on 26.06.2009. It is further found that as the appellant has filed the original bills of entry with the Customs Department and they were not in a position to again produce the same before the Excise Department - the refusal to allow cenvat credit by the Court below is bad. The appellant is entitled to cenvat credit under dispute - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the appellant rightly took cenvat credit on the import of capital goods under the project import regulation.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of industrial gases, imported capital goods under the project import regulations during February 2006 to April 2007. The imported goods were installed in the factory as per Customs Rules and Regulations, verified by the Range Superintendent through a certificate of installation. In a previous appeal, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to verify the documents supporting the cenvat credit. The appellant faced denial of cenvat credit due to the non-production of the original bill of entry, which was filed for final assessment with the Customs Authority. The appellant argued that the original bills of entry were not in their possession for re-submission. The Tribunal found that the machinery was imported, cleared provisionally, and installed in the factory, as certified by the Range Superintendent. The refusal to allow cenvat credit based solely on the non-production of the original bill of entry was deemed unreasonable.

The Tribunal, after considering the facts and contentions, concluded that the appellant had indeed imported and installed the machinery as required. Since the original bills of entry were submitted to the Customs Department for final assessment and could not be reproduced for the Excise Department, the denial of cenvat credit was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted the appellant the entitlement to cenvat credit under dispute, along with consequential benefits as per the law.