9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived in the factory of the production and used for the manufacture of excisable goods, there should not be any bar in taking Cenvat credit under Rule 9 thereof which is substantial benefit and not to be denied on account and procedural ground. In various decisions, it has been consistently held that CENVAT credit can be taken on the photocopy of the Bill of Entry provided other requirement with respect to receipt of input into the factory, duty paid character inputs and their use is not in dispute - Further, the appellant has submitted the various documents to prove the receipt of its usage but the same has not been considered and CENVAT credit has been denied merely on the ground that photocopy of the Bill of Entry is not the proper doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Rule 14 of CCR read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 11AB ibid, respectively and imposed penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order denying the CENVAT credit on the photocopies of the Bills of Entry is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the appellant had imported spare parts from M/s. Tata Daewoo Commercial Vehicle Co. Ltd., Korea at their Spare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nai) 4.1. He also submitted that Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 nowhere provides that CENVAT credit cannot be availed on the basis of photocopy of the documents. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Matsushita Television Audio India Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Noida 2004 (177) ELT 496 (Tri. Delhi) Affirmed by Commissioner of Customs C.Ex. v. Matsushita Television Audio India Ltd. 2015 (324) ELT 264 (All.) Shivam Electricals Industries v. UOI 2017-VIL-657-J K-CE Earth Power v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bharuch 2018-VIL-209-CESTAT-AHM-CE Arbes Tools P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. MANU/CM/0035/2016 Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted that there is a procedure for getting the duplicate copy of the Bill of Entry after lodging FIR for loss of original Bill of Entry but in the present case, the appellant has not filed the FIR therefore he cannot take the CENVAT credit on photocopies. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the only ground on which CENVAT credit has been denied is that the appellant has taken the CENVAT credit on photocopies of the Bills of Entry which according to the Department is not the valid document under Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004 for taking credit. Further, I find that in the present case, the receipt of the inputs and duty paid on the inputs was used in the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of input into the factory, duty paid character inputs and their use is not in dispute. Further, the appellant has submitted the various documents to prove the receipt of its usage but the same has not been considered and CENVAT credit has been denied merely on the ground that photocopy of the Bill of Entry is not the proper document. By relying upon the decision of the Tribunal cited supra, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law because it is a settled law that CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the ground of procedural lapses. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the original authority only for the purpose of verification of the documents relating to its receipt and usage o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
