9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] where it was held that the Bill of Entry attested by the Customs Officer is a valid document for claiming cenvat credit and further that the original documents which are in possession of the appellant need to be verified by the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/20220/2014-SM - 20009/2017 - Dated:- 2-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Smt Swetha Raja, Advocate For the Appellant Smt Ezhil Mathi, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original and also remanded the matter to the original authority to verify certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressed to warehouse instead of manufacturing unit cannot be a ground for denial of credit. Thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same has been passed by wrongfully denying the cenvat credit correctly availed by the appellant. He further submitted that it has not been denied anywhere that the inputs/input services/capital goods have not been received by the appellant and such input or input services were used by the appellant for the purpose of manufacture of the dutiable final product. Therefore according to the learned counsel, the primary conditions to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed copies of Bill of Entry is a valid document for availment of cenvat credit as substantive requirement of law has been fulfilled mainly in view of the fact that bill of entry is in the name of the appellant and there is no dispute about the receipt or utilization of the input. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Vardhaman Acrylics Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex and Cus., Surat II reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 321 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein the Mumbai Tribunal has held that the appellants have also produced a certificate issued from proper officer apart from photocopy of bill of entry which has been Notarised photocopy of Bill of Entry, Original for duplicate copy of the Bill of entry which has been obtained from Bank and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.1996 wherein clarification was issued due to the problem faced in availing modvat credit on Rule 52A invoice in the name of Registered Office/Head Office but the credit was to be availed by the factory. Learned counsel also submitted that the entire demand is beyond limitation as the conditions for invoking the extended period are not satisfied in the present case. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the credit has been rightly denied because the documents in possession of the appellant were not proper for claiming cenvat credit as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5. After considering the submission of both the parties, I find that the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
