2024 (7) TMI 301 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - denial to avail credit of the import duties as the original documents (Bills of Entry) were lost - HELD THAT - Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 provides for the documents on which credit can be availed. The Proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 states that if the document does not contain full particulars, the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner may cause verification and if satisfied, allow the credit. In the present case, there is no dispute that goods have been imported and received at the factory of the appellant. So also there is no dispute that the duty has been paid. The photocopies of the Bills of Entry are supported by certificate issued by Inspector of Police for loss of original as well as certificate issued by customs authorities for payment of duty. It is not a case of availment of credit on mere photocopies. It is held that disallowing the credit alleging that original documents have not been produced is too harsh on the assessee and would result in denying substantive benefit of credit. The appellant is eligible for credit. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the appellant is eligible to avail credit in the absence of original Bills of Entry.

Analysis:
The appellant imported goods and lost the original Bills of Entry during transit. They lodged a police complaint and obtained certificates from the Inspector of Police and Customs authorities. The department denied credit due to the missing original documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that they should be allowed credit based on the attested copies and certificates. The department relied on legal precedents stating photocopies cannot be accepted as primary evidence. The main issue was whether the appellant could avail credit without the original Bills of Entry.

The Tribunal examined Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, which allows credit based on documents verified by authorities even if full particulars are not present. It was undisputed that the goods were imported, received, and duties paid. The appellant provided attested copies of Bills of Entry, supported by certificates of loss and duty payment. The Tribunal distinguished the case cited by the department, stating it did not apply here. They also clarified that strict civil procedure rules did not directly apply to quasi-judicial proceedings like this. Referring to a High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that denying credit solely for lack of original documents would be unjust and that the appellant was entitled to credit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, granting the appellant consequential reliefs. The judgment emphasized that disallowing credit based on missing original documents would unfairly deny the appellant their substantive benefit.