Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied merely because the credit was taken on the basis of a certified copy of the bill of entry when the bill of entry stood in the appellant's name and receipt and use of the inputs were not in dispute.
Analysis: The document prescribed for availment of credit was the bill of entry, and the loss of the importer's copy did not nullify the underlying eligibility where the Customs authority had certified the copy and the genuineness of the transaction was not doubted. The substantive requirement was satisfied because the inputs were shown to have been received and utilised, and the Revenue had not undertaken any verification to establish misuse. The contrary decision relied upon by the Revenue was distinguished on the basis that the documents there were not in the appellant's name.
Conclusion: Cenvat credit could not be denied on the ground that the appellant relied upon a certified copy of the bill of entry, and the denial of credit, penalty, and interest was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant was held entitled to the credit with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the prescribed duty document is shown to be genuine and the substantive conditions for credit are otherwise fulfilled, credit cannot be denied solely because the original copy is unavailable and a certified copy is produced.