2013 (1) TMI 527 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Cenvat Credit with Photocopies: Importance of Proper Documentation

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.. VAPI Versus MEHTA HWA FUH PLASTICS PVT. LTD.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the admissibility of Cenvat credit for the respondent based on evidence provided, despite the use of ... Denial of CENVAT Credit - Rule 9(1)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - CENVAT Credit on the basis of photocopy of seven bills of entry – Held that:- Since assessee submits evidence of payment of customs duty, receipt of inputs in the factory of the respondent which was evidenced by the fact that respondent had produced certificates issued by Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Navasheva in respect of six bills of entry, bills of C & F agents, LRs of the transporters, goods receipt notes, RG 23A Part 1 & 2 registers, supplier’s ledger, account proof of payment. The goods have been received and used in the manufacture and duty has been paid. Therefore, there is nothing legally or factually wrong with the impugned order. In favour of assessee Issues:1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit based on photocopies of bills of entry.2. Interpretation of Rule 9(1)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.3. Validity of availing credit on the basis of certificates issued by Deputy Commissioner of Customs.4. Comparison of different legal precedents regarding admissibility of credit based on document copies.5. Consideration of evidence presented before the original adjudicating authority.Analysis:1. The case revolved around the admissibility of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,05,905/- based on photocopies of bills of entry by the respondent. The audit found the credit inadmissible as Rule 9(1)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 specifies the required documents for availing such credit. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for wrongly availed credit, leading to penalty imposition.2. The appeal by the respondent was allowed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) based on evidence of customs duty payment and receipt of inputs, supported by certificates from Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Navasheva, bills of entry, C & F agents' documents, and other records. The Revenue contended that credit should only be allowed based on original bills of entry, not photocopies.3. The ld. AR cited legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, to argue against allowing credit based on certificates or photocopies. The Tribunal considered these arguments, emphasizing the necessity of original documents for credit admissibility.4. The Tribunal analyzed the cited legal precedents, distinguishing cases where credit was disallowed due to missing original documents or incorrect claims. The ld. Commissioner's reliance on various decisions supporting credit admissibility based on endorsed copies of invoices or certified copies was crucial in upholding the respondent's appeal.5. The respondent explained that they initially availed credit based on original bills of entry but later provided additional evidence due to original document misplacement. The Tribunal considered this explanation and the evidence submitted before the original adjudicating authority, ultimately finding no legal or factual flaws in the ld. Commissioner's decision to allow the credit based on the presented documents.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the admissibility of Cenvat credit for the respondent based on the evidence provided, despite the use of photocopies instead of original bills of entry. The detailed analysis of legal precedents and the consideration of evidence played a significant role in the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation for availing such credits.