9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n after hearing the Departmental Representative. 2. Have heard Shri Santosh Kumar, Departmental Representative for the Revenue who submits that the issue involved in the present case is in respect of denial of Cenvat credit for the reason of nonproduction of original documents against which Cenvat credit has been taken. He further reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 3. I have considered the impugned order alongwith the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of argument. For denial of credit the First Appellate Authority has recorded as follows:- "4.2 I observe that the CENVAT Scheme under Central Excise and Service Tax allows credit of specified duties/ service tax paid on eligible Inputs, Capital goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 At the appellate stage too, the appellant has not submitted any single invoices /documents in support of their claim. Thus, admissibility of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 28,59,704/- could not be ascertained at the appellate stage as well. Since, the appellant has failed to produced eligible CENVAT credit documents during the course of audit, at the time of issuance of SCN, during adjudication proceedings and also during appellate stage, therefore, I have no option but to reject the submission made by the appellant." 4. In the present case the issue is in very limited scope as the Appellant has not produced the original documents against which the credit has been taken. It is not in dispute that the said input service were received and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisgarh)], the Hon'ble High Court held as follows : "2. The fundamental issue raised before the CESTAT by the Department was that the adjudicating authority had given the benefit of Cenvat credit solely on the basis of photocopies of the documents. The Tribunal on the basis of the material and after hearing counsel for the parties including the departmental representative, confirmed that. In terms of the report from the Range Superintendent, Raipur, the Commissioner stood informed that the photocopies were genuine. It was therefore that the Tribunal also relied on the documents which were photocopies. We do not see that any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for decision in this appeal under Section 35G of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices. As per the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), there is no dispute regarding receipt of duty paid inputs under these invoices and their use in the manufacture of finished goods cleared on payment of duty. It is also not the allegation that Cenvat credit on the basis of these invoices has been taken more than once. In view of this, denial of Cenvat credit on the basis of Carbon copy/extra copy of the invoices and imposition of penalty for taking wrong Cenvat Credit is not correct. The impugned order therefore is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief" 13. After appreciating the facts and in compliance to the above judicial precedents, we are of the considered opinion that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
