9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r challan has to be the original, if Cenvat credit is allowed on the basis of photocopies without any check, credit can be taken more than once on the basis of the same invoices. In this case, though the appellants pleaded that original copy of the invoice was available and since on the basis of one original copy, several units of the appellant’s company have taken proportionate amount of credit and for this reason, the appellant’s unit has only the photocopy on its record, from the records it is seen that at no stage the original copy of the invoice was produced. In any case, when during the period of dispute, the facility of distribution of Service tax Cenvat credit by the head office by issuing invoices after registration as Input Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed. The appellants are not pressing for the Cenvat credit in respect of club bills and they are contesting the Commissioner (Appeals) s order only with regard to denial of Cenvat credit taken on the basis of photocopies of invoices or duplicate invoices. 2. Shri Alok Arora, ld. Counsel for the appellants pleaded that in some cases, credit has been taken on the basis of duplicate copies of invoices used by input service providers as the originals had been lost/misplaced as a result of which the appellants obtained duplicate invoices from the service providers, that in cases where the Cenvat credit has been taken on the basis of photocopies of the invoices, since only one original invoice is available and on the basis of the same, four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo decision. He therefore pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 3. Shri R.K. Mathur, ld. DR, supported the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasised that even from the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Steelco Gujarat Ltd. and the judgment of Hon ble Chhatisgarh High Court in the case of Union of India v. Hira Steels (supra), it is clear that where the credit has been taken on the basis of photocopies or extra copies of the invoices, the same must be duly verified and attested by the jurisdictional Superintendent as permitting the same may result in Cenvat credit being taken more than once on the basis of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdictional Central Excise Officer. In view of this, I hold that so far as duplicate copies are concerned, the same cannot be treated as valid documents and Cenvat credit has been correctly denied. 6. As regards Cenvat credit taken on the basis of photocopies of the invoices, though Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, does not mention that the invoice/bill or challan has to be the original, if Cenvat credit is allowed on the basis of photocopies without any check, credit can be taken more than once on the basis of the same invoices. Therefore, Cenvat credit cannot be allowed on the basis of photocopy of invoices/bill or challan. In this case, though the appellants pleaded that original copy of the invoice was available and since on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
