9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ja, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: The present appeal is filed against the 84/2018 dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Dehradun. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper products, writing and printing papers. They imported certain consignments by courier, from time to time. Such consignments were cleared by the courier company by filing a consolidated Bill of Entry, covering several such consignments for various importers. The appellant received only a photocopy of the consolidated bill of entry filed by courier company and availed cenvat credit on the basis of such documents. The department objected to such cenvat credit availed, on the basis of photocopy, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile separate bill of entry for import via courier. He reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the Hon ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the law in such cases. He submitted that the cenvat credit cannot be allowed. 6. Heard both sides and perused appeal record. 7. The appellant has procured various components from time to time for use in their factory, through the courier import route. The bills of entry was filed by the courier company but these were filed in a consolidated way, with each bill of entry covering the imports made by several importers. The appellant received only photocopy of the bill of entry and the original copy was in the possession of the courier company. The question for decision i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ency, the details of each importer - consignee stand mentioned in the bill of entry. Considering the special category of imports and considering that the Customs have prescribed a different procedure, the grounds on which the credit are sought to be denied cannot be sustained. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for the respondents, the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Controls Drives Coimbatore (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 2008 (222) E.L.T. 470 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Macneill Engineering Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-VII reported in 2009 (234) E.L.T. 345 . 8. By following the above decision (supra), the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. (Dic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
