9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied upon i.e., NOVOZYMES SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE, Final Order No. 27076/2013 [ 2013 (12) TMI 1474 - CESTAT BANGALORE ] and ITW INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., CUSTOMS SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD-I [ 2013 (12) TMI 1618 - CESTAT BANGALORE ] is that when there is no dispute on the receipt of input service and its utilization, credit cannot be denied merely on the basis of wrong address of the appellant in the invoice/Bill of Entry - credit allowed. Denial of CENVAT credit on the basis of attested copies of Bill of Entry - HELD THAT:- It is found that credit has wrongly been denied on the ground that photocopies is not a proper document for claiming the CENVAT credit under Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR - reliance can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the goods covered under invoices/Bill of Entry were, in fact, received at the appellant s factory and the said goods were used for the manufacture of final product and therefore, the technical lapse of the Bill of Entry not having the factory address is not a prima facie reason to reject the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant. He further submitted that the eligibility of goods covered by the Bill of Entry addressed to other factory of the appellant is not in doubt and it is only a procedural lapse of mentioning of the other factory addr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the following decisions: Godrej Industries Ltd. Vs CCE, Mumbai, 2008 (229) ELT 484 (SC). CCE Cus., Surat Vs Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds, 2015 (326) ELT 3 (SC). 4.2. He further submitted that denial of CENVAT credit on the basis of photocopies of Bill of Entry is also not sustainable in law because in the present case, the appellant lost the Bill of Entry and he has lodged the FIR, the copies of which has been submitted before me and Sworn Affidavit regarding the loss of documents have also been filed. He further submitted that the Customs itself has attested the photocopies which are on record and the same has been done after verification from the system of the Department. He further submitted that once the duplicate Bill of Entry has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the CENVAT credit under Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR. Further, I find that on an identical issue Division Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Balkrishna Industries Ltd. cited supra, has held as under in Para 6 which is reproduced herein below: 6. The credit has been disallowed on three grounds (1) The bills of entry are not original (2) few documents on which credit is availed are more than a year old, (3) the air-conditioners upon which credit is availed is not installed in the factory. The main dispute, therefore, narrows down to the admissibility of the Cenvat credit in respect of the reconstructed copies of the bills of entry. The appellant had originals of the documents in dispute. They lost the documents and FIR has also been lodged for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
