9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turer engaged in manufacturing Aluminium Ingot alloys and clearing finished goods on payment of duty, availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 19,86,081/- pertaining to raw materials, on photo copies of bills of entry during the period March 2011 to April 2011, as per Annexure A to the show-cause notice, comprising a total of six bills of entry. Vide show-cause notice dated 02/03/2012, pursuant to scrutiny of Cenvat documents, it appeared that the appellant have taken credit on photocopies of the bills of entry but they could not produce the relevant original copies of the bills of entry. It further appeared that photocopy is not admissible in view of Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Appellant was directed to reverse the credit taken immed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al documents earlier. Subsequently, the Cenvat documents in original were submitted for the first time with written reply dated 26.4.2012 received by the Department on 2.5.2012. The contention of the appellant that due to technical problem in their plant, they could not get back the documents earlier, and were traced later was held to be not sustainable, observing that documents in original were not available with the appellant till May, 2012. Accordingly, it was held that they have violated the provisions of Rule 3 read with Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Hence the present demand was confirmed along with appropriation, with interest and further equal amount of penalty was imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed document for availing CENVAT credit /CVD on import of input, as prescribed under Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. No discrepancy as required under Rule 9(2), regarding contents in the bill of entry, has been pointed out. As such, the denial of credit by the courts below is erroneous. He further relies on the ruling of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara-II Vs. Steelco Gujarat Ltd. - 2010 (255) ELT 518 (Guj.), wherein the credit was availed on the basis of Xerox copy of the triplicate of the invoice duly attested by the Range Supdt. at the supplier's end to the evidence that the duty paying character of the invoice in question, under the fact that original/duplicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible documents and penalty imposed. This Tribunal held that the courts below have erred in denying the CENVAT credit taken on the strength of 10 original bills of entry. Insofar as credit taken on the xerox copies of 22 bills of entry is concerned, the same was remanded with the direction to allow reasonable opportunity to produce certified/attested xerox copies. 7. Having considered rival contentions, I find that there is no dispute by the courts below on the fact that the appellant have received the imported raw material in question in their factory of production and also regarding the duty paid character of the same. I find that denial of CENVAT credit for venial breach is not tenable. More so in view of the fact that the appellant pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
