2017 (5) TMI 274 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - common courier bill of entry for various importers - whether credit available on the basis of photocopy of the courier bill of entry? - doors and panels used in office as capital goods - penalty u/s 11AC - Held that - in case of courier bill of entry, it is practically impossible to have an original copy of the bill of entry for the reason that a common bill of entry is prepared in respect of various importers therefore the courier bill of entry cannot be available with each and every importer - credit allowed. Credit on doors and panels - Held that - credit of ₹ 28,963/- which is in excess of 50% availed on capital goods and credit of ₹ 13,922/- availed in excess, it has been admitted by the appellant that the same is not admissible, accordingly the demand of ₹ 31,174 ₹ 28,963 ₹ 13,922/- are upheld. Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that - Since the appellant have admittedly reversed the inadmissible credit even before issuance of SCN along with interest, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant - penalty not imposable. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of cenvat credit on photocopy of courier bill of entry
2. Availability of credit on doors and panels used in the office as capital goods
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC

Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Photocopy of Courier Bill of Entry:
The appellant contested the admissibility of cenvat credit on the photocopy of the courier bill of entry and the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. The appellant argued that the credit had been allowed in various judgments and cited relevant cases to support their claim. The Tribunal noted that it is practically impossible to have an original copy of the bill of entry for courier purposes due to a common bill of entry prepared for multiple importers. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed the credit availed on the photocopy of the courier bill of entry as admissible, ultimately allowing the credit.

Availability of Credit on Doors and Panels Used in the Office as Capital Goods:
The appellant admitted that certain credits availed on doors and panels used in the office, as well as excess credits taken on capital goods and other items, were not admissible. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the demand for the amounts in question. The appellant's awareness of the inadmissible nature of these credits led to the rejection of their claim regarding these specific items.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 11AC:
Regarding the penalty under Section 11AC, the appellant had promptly reversed the inadmissible credits upon audit findings and before the issuance of a show-cause notice, along with interest. The Tribunal found no suppression of facts by the appellant and, considering the circumstances, deemed the penalty under Section 11AC as not imposable. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the lower authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed based on the Tribunal's findings on the admissibility of cenvat credit, the availability of credit on specific items, and the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.