2011 (4) TMI 292 - AT - Central Excise

Document to avail CENVAT credit - Povisions of Rule 9(1)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - whether the CENVAT credit availed by the respondent on the strength of the xerox copy of the bill of entry when all the valid documents are lost - As per the decision of Bombay Goods Transport Association vs. UOI 1993 -TMI - 44018 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY , it was held that modvat credit based on certified copy or authenticated copy cannot be mechanically disallowed - Hence, the appellant has already approached before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Goa to get the certified copy of bill of entry which has been denied by him - Therefore, the respondents are entitled for CENVAT credit availed by them on the strength of xerox copy - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether xerox copy of the bill of entry is a proper document to avail CENVAT credit under Rule 9(1)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of CENVAT credit based on a xerox copy of the bill of entry. The revenue contended that as per Rule 9(1)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, a xerox copy is not a valid document for claiming credit. The respondent had taken CENVAT credit based on the xerox copy of the bill of entry, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice alleging wrong availment of credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order in favor of the respondent, prompting the revenue to appeal.

The revenue argued that Rule 9(1)(c) prohibits the use of xerox copies for claiming CENVAT credit, urging the tribunal to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate defended the impugned order, stating that they had lodged a police complaint and made efforts to obtain a certified copy of the bill of entry, which was denied. The respondent confirmed receiving the goods, paying duty on them, and utilizing them in the manufacturing process, emphasizing that credit should not be denied on technical grounds.

Upon careful consideration, the tribunal examined whether the respondent was entitled to CENVAT credit based on the xerox copy of the bill of entry. The lower appellate authority had analyzed the issue extensively, citing relevant legal provisions and precedents. The authority highlighted the discretionary power of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner under Rule 9(1)(c) to allow credit if satisfied with the receipt and utilization of goods, even in the absence of original documents. The authority also referenced precedents supporting the acceptance of certified copies in similar cases.

Agreeing with the lower appellate authority, the tribunal emphasized that substantial benefits should not be denied due to technical violations. It noted the respondent's efforts to obtain a certified copy, the absence of duty evasion or misuse of goods, and the lack of dispute regarding the receipt and utilization of goods. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, ruling in favor of the respondent and rejecting the revenue's appeal.