2020 (1) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - Department had observed that the appellant had availed CENVAT credit on BOEs not addressed to their registered premises and on photocopies of Bills of Entry which were also not addressed to their registered premises - HELD THAT - The denial of CENVAT credit on account of wrong address of the recipient in the invoice/Bill of Entry cannot be a ground to deny credit in view of various decisions relied upon by the appellant - the ratio of the decision relied upon i.e., NOVOZYMES SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE, Final Order No. 27076/2013 2013 (12) TMI 1474 - CESTAT BANGALORE and ITW INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., CUSTOMS SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD-I 2013 (12) TMI 1618 - CESTAT BANGALORE is that when there is no dispute on the receipt of input service and its utilization, credit cannot be denied merely on the basis of wrong address of the appellant in the invoice/Bill of Entry - credit allowed. Denial of CENVAT credit on the basis of attested copies of Bill of Entry - HELD THAT - It is found that credit has wrongly been denied on the ground that photocopies is not a proper document for claiming the CENVAT credit under Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR - reliance can be placed in the case of M/S BALKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I 2016 (1) TMI 383 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - credit allowed. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against rejection of CENVAT credit on BOEs not addressed to registered premises and photocopies of BOEs, denial of credit based on wrong recipient address, denial of credit on attested copies of BOEs.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order rejecting CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on BOEs not addressed to their registered premises and on photocopies of BOEs. The appellant argued that the goods were received at their factory and used for manufacturing, making the address lapse on the BOE insignificant. They cited various decisions supporting their claim, emphasizing that the receipt and utilization of input services were not disputed. The Commissioner's observation on lack of proof of goods receipt was challenged, pointing out discrepancies between the impugned order and the show cause notice (SCN) and Order-in-Original. The appellant also defended the use of photocopies of BOEs, citing loss of original documents, FIR filing, and attestation by Customs as valid reasons for claiming credit.

2. The appellant's counsel contended that denial of credit based on wrong recipient address in the BOE was unjustified, as established by precedents. The Tribunal found that denial of credit on attested copies of BOEs was incorrect, referring to a similar case where reconstructed copies were accepted after attestation by Customs officers. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's arguments, noting that various decisions supported the appellant's entitlement to credit on attested copies of BOEs. Ultimately, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the established legal principles and precedents cited by the appellant, emphasizing that the denial of CENVAT credit on technical grounds without disputing receipt and utilization of input services was not sustainable in law. By following the rulings of previous cases and considering the specific circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was legally untenable, leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal.