2010 (2) TMI 307 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat- Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit on attested copy of the invoice (triplicate copy of the invoice) issued by the manufacturer in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? (b) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee, can an attested invoice (triplicate copy of invoice) be considered to be a document for the purpose as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? (c) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case the Hon ble Tribunal and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have committed an error in granting Cenvat Credit to the Assessee? Held that- the Tribunal has observed that mere zerox copy by itself should not be made the basis of allowing the credit but where the assessee has made efforts to get the said xerox copy attested by the Range Superintendent of the supplier s end and has established beyond doubt that the duty stands paid on the goods and the goods stand received by him, denial of credit on this procedural irregularity would not be justified. There is no infirmity in the Tribunal order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on attested copy of invoice
2. Consideration of attested invoice as a valid document under Cenvat Credit Rules
3. Alleged error in granting Cenvat Credit to the Assessee

Entitlement to Cenvat credit on attested copy of invoice:
The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs filed a Tax Appeal questioning the entitlement of the assessee to take Cenvat credit on an attested copy of the invoice issued by the manufacturer. The Commissioner argued whether the attested invoice could be considered a valid document for Cenvat credit under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner contended that the original/duplicate invoices were lost in transit, and the Appellants availed Cenvat credit based on a zerox copy of the triplicate invoice, attested by the Range Superintendent. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the duty paid character of the inputs, their receipt, and utilization for manufacturing the final product. The Commissioner concluded that the Appellants' legitimate right could not be denied due to the lost invoices, suggesting a precautionary measure in case the original documents were recovered.

Consideration of attested invoice as a valid document under Cenvat Credit Rules:
The Tribunal, while upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasized that mere zerox copies should not suffice for allowing credit. However, if the assessee made efforts to have the copy attested by the Range Superintendent and proved duty payment and receipt of goods, denying credit based on procedural irregularities would be unjustified. The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner (Appeals) order based on the established duty payment and receipt of goods by the assessee.

Alleged error in granting Cenvat Credit to the Assessee:
The Revenue appealed the Tribunal's decision, questioning the grant of Cenvat credit to the Assessee. The High Court noted the concurrent findings by both appellate authorities, finding no fault in the Tribunal's decision. The High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order and summarily dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision to grant Cenvat credit based on the attested copy of the invoice.