2019 (1) TMI 375 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - photocopy invoices - Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - There is no dispute regarding the receipt of duty paid inputs covered under the impugned invoices and their use in the manufacture of finished goods. Nor there is any allegation that the invoices are bogus. Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is relevant for the purpose which mandates the requirement of invoices issued by a manufacturer for clearance of inputs and capital goods from his factory as the prescribed documents for availing cenvat credit - From the perusal of rule 9, it is clear that there is no express mandate for such invoices to only be in original. Since the verification and re-calculation based on the photocopies of invoices as are asserted to be available with the appellant for entitling him the credit of ₹ 1,68,766/- is required. It is opined that the matter be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for considering the photocopies of the invoices - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing cenvat credit based on photocopies of invoices.
2. Interpretation of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the requirement of original invoices for availing cenvat credit.
3. Admissibility of photocopies as secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
4. Consideration of genuineness of transactions and payment of taxes for availing cenvat credit.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the appellant being challenged for availing cenvat credit based on photocopies of invoices not in the name of the correct entity. The Department demanded the irregularly availed credit amounting to ?46,40,390 for a specific period. The appeal process involved multiple orders, with the final appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The dispute revolves around whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit based on photocopies of invoices. The Tribunal examined Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which does not expressly mandate invoices to be in original. Legal precedents were cited to support the admissibility of photocopies as secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the focus on original invoices should not hinder the grant of cenvat credit if transactions are genuine and taxes are paid.

3. The Tribunal considered the genuineness of the transactions and payment of taxes as crucial factors for availing cenvat credit. It highlighted that the Department did not dispute the authenticity of the transactions or the payment of taxes. The Tribunal opined that the insistence on original invoices was insufficient to deny cenvat credit benefits to the appellant. It concluded that no malafide intent could be attributed to the appellant.

4. In the final decision, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration based on the photocopies of invoices provided by the appellant. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to adjudicate while considering the entire discussion and facts presented. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of genuine transactions and compliance with tax obligations.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, interpretations of relevant rules, and the Tribunal's decision based on the presented arguments and legal principles.