2016 (6) TMI 1099 - AT - Central Excise

Entitlement to cenvat credit on the basis of photocopy of Courier Bill of Entry - Held that - It is a fact that there is no dispute in the present case regarding the receipt of inputs and payment of duty on the final product and the eligibility of the appellant to avail the cenvat credit on the duty paid on inputs. The cenvat credit on photocopy of the Courier Bill of Entry cannot be denied as the same is a proper document under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. See Controls & Drives Coimbatore (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 2007 (11) TMI 57 - CESTAT CHENNAI - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to cenvat credit based on photocopy of Courier Bill of Entry

Analysis:
The present appeals were filed against the Orders-in-Appeal dismissing the appellant's appeals and upholding the order of the adjudicating authority. The appellants, manufacturers of excisable goods, availed cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 based on photocopies of Courier Bill of Entry. The respondent issued a show-cause notice challenging the cenvat credit availed. The appellant contended that the credit was availed on valid grounds with no dispute about receipt of inputs or payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, leading to the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also upheld the decision. The appellant argued that the impugned order failed to consider submissions, evidence, and relevant case laws. The appellant relied on various judgments supporting their case, emphasizing the acceptance of cenvat credit based on photocopies of Courier Bill of Entry in specific circumstances.

The learned counsel for the appellant highlighted that there was no dispute regarding the receipt of inputs or payment of duty on the final product. The appellant referenced judgments like Controls & Drives Coimbatore (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore and CCE, Lucknow Vs. Fusion Electronics (P) Ltd., among others, to support their claim that denial of credit based on original bill of entry not produced was improper. The appellant also cited Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III Vs. Interface Microsystems and M/s. Promod Telecom (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Lucknow to establish the validity of claiming cenvat credit based on photocopies of Courier Bill of Entry. On the contrary, the learned AR cited DSM Sugar Vs. CCE, Meerut-II to argue that photocopies of Courier Bill of Entry are not sufficient as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 to claim cenvat credit.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, the crucial issue to be determined was the entitlement of the appellants to cenvat credit based on photocopies of Courier Bill of Entry. It was noted that there was no dispute regarding the receipt of inputs, payment of duty, or the appellant's eligibility for the credit. Relying on the judgments cited by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that cenvat credit based on photocopies of Courier Bill of Entry cannot be denied as it qualifies as a proper document under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The Tribunal found the appellant's case to be fully covered by the cited judgments and allowed both appeals by setting aside the impugned order, providing consequential relief if necessary.