9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n CENVAT credit on the strength of the xerox copy of the bill of entry which is not a proper document. Therefore, a show-cause notice was issued for wrong availment of CENVAT credit on the strength of xerox copy of bill of entry and for proposing penalty on the respondent for suppression of facts with an intention to evade duty. Same was adjudicated, demand was confirmed, penalty was imposed. Against that order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal of the respondent. Aggrieved from the said order, revenue is in appeal. 3. The ld. DR submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 9(1)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, xerox copy is not a proper d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at credit of Rs.3,33,564/- on the strength of xerox copy of the bill of entry. The said cenvat credit was disallowed solely based under the provisions contained in rule 9(1)(c). That, as contended by the appellants, the said rule is silent, when all the valid documents are lost. However, proviso to sub rule (2) of rule 9 gives power to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner to allow the credit, if he is satisfied that the goods covered by the documents (in the instant case- bill of entry) have been received and accounted for in the books of the receiver (in the instant case - the appellant). As contended by the appellant, the adjudicating authority has not exercised this discretionary power available in the said rule. Besides, there was also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tena of decisions wherein it has been consistently held that the substantial benefit cannot be denied on the basis of technical violation. In the instant case, the issue involved is a technical violation i.e. cenvat credit was not taken on the strength of bill of entry but on the basis of xerox copy of bill of entry. 7. After going through the observation made by the lower appellate authority I do agree with the observation that substantial benefit cannot be denied on the basis of mere technical violation. In this case, the respondents have made effort to obtain certified copy of the bill of entry which was also denied to them. Further it is not disputed that the goods have not suffered duty and they have not been used in the manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
