2018 (6) TMI 316 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial on the ground that credit claimed against photocopies of the bills of entry and without receipt at their premises - Held that - There is no dispute that the goods had been utilized for the purposes of manufacture - the disallowance of CENVAT credit is not sustainable. Reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara II v. Steelco Gujarat Ltd 2010 (2) TMI 307 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held 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 - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of CENVAT credit for non-registration and absence of original documents, denial of credit of duty paid on goods sent directly to job worker.

Analysis:
The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance of credit availed on invoices issued by another unit of the appellant before registration, against photocopies of bills of entry, and against bills of entry pertaining to clearance by another unit. The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and the Tribunal in similar cases to support their claim for credit based on attested copies of invoices. The Tribunal's decision emphasized that there is no time limit for taking credit if documents are available, and there is no express restriction on credit distribution prior to registration by the Input Service Distributor (ISD). The appellant contested the disallowance based on non-registration and absence of original documents, citing a case where credit was allowed for goods sent directly to a job worker.

The Tribunal noted that the goods in question were utilized for manufacturing purposes, and the Authorized Representative argued that the disallowance was justified under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, considering the precedents cited by the Learned Counsel, the Tribunal found the disallowance of CENVAT credit unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment was pronounced in court on 01/05/2018.