9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 97 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit of CVD - duty paying documents - credit availed on the strength of said photocopy of the Bill of Entry - Rule 9 of CCR 2004 - Held that - The admitted fact is that the goods were imported on payment of appropriate duty of Customs the goods were received in the factory and they were used in the manufacture of final product and Cenvat credit of CVD paid on the input was availed as Cenvat credit - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. LUCKNOW Versus FUSION ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. 2010 (11) TMI 285 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that Production of photocopies of Bill of Entry by the respondents cannot be held against them - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat credit based on photocopies of Bill of Entry for imported goods. Analysis: The appeal was against an Order-in-Appeal dated 18/01/2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Noida. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing machines, availed Cenvat credit on duty paid for inputs and capital goods imported through courier. The Revenue raised concerns about the admissibility of photocopies of the Bill of Entry for availing Cenvat credit. The dispute revolved around whether photocopies of the Bill of Entry were admissible documents as per Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Original Authority confirmed the demand through an Order-in-Original, leading to the appellant filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Tribunal. The appellant argued that during the period in question (Financial Year 2011-12 to 2014-15), Notification No.27/2015/CE(NT) dated 31/12/2015 included provisions covering certificates issued by Customs authorizers for goods imported by authorized couriers. They cited precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of manufacturers, emphasizing that the goods were received, utilized in manufacturing, and Cenvat credit was availed based on photocopies due to unavailability of original documents. The Tribunal's previous decisions in cases like Controls & Drives Coimbatore (P) Ltd. and Fusion Electronics (P) Ltd. were presented to support the appellant's position. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 18/01/2017. After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the facts, the Tribunal focused on the key issue of whether Cenvat credit was admissible to the appellant based on photocopies of the Bill of Entry. Referring to the precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Versus Fusion Electronics (P) Ltd., the Tribunal found that when goods are imported through couriers, and the courier agency files a common Bill of Entry on behalf of multiple importers, the production of photocopies of the Bill of Entry cannot be held against the importers. The Tribunal emphasized the unique circumstances of such imports and the prescribed procedures by Customs, leading to the conclusion that the denial of credit based on photocopies was not sustainable. Therefore, based on the precedent decisions and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal held that Cenvat credit amounting to ?8,19,655 was indeed admissible to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 18/01/2017 was set aside.
|
