2018 (4) TMI 102 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows CENVAT credit on courier Bill of Entry copies, citing Rule 9, precedents

The Tribunal set aside the denial of CENVAT credit on Xerox copies of courier Bill of Entry, ruling in favor of the appellant. The appellant successfully ... CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - Xerox copies of courier Bill of Entry - Held that: - courier Bill of entry has been held to be a valid document for taking credit as held by the decision in the case of Precision Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida [2015 (7) TMI 1228 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that Since, the Courier Bill of Entry has been issued by the courier agency in favour of various parties/consignees, there was no scope for issuing the original invoice in favour of each and every party and credit should not be denied - credit to be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeal against denial of CENVAT credit on Xerox copies of courier Bill of Entry.Analysis:The appellant filed two appeals against the Commissioner(Appeals) order denying CENVAT credit on Xerox copies of courier Bill of Entry. The issue in both appeals being identical, they were disposed of by a common order. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, had irregularly availed CENVAT credit on Xerox copies of courier bills of entry, which were not prescribed documents as per Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules. The Board's Circular clarified that a normal bill of entry is required for availing CENVAT credit on goods imported through courier mode. The appellant contravened Rule 9(1) of CCR by availing credit on Xerox copies of courier bills of entry. Show-cause notices were issued, and the demand was confirmed by the original authority, leading to the filing of appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals).During the hearing, the appellant argued that the impugned order was contrary to binding judicial precedent and denied credit on a technical ground. They contended that courier bills of entry are accepted documents under Rule 9 of CCR for CENVAT credit. The appellant cited various Tribunal decisions supporting the validity of courier bills of entry for credit. On the other hand, the AR defended the impugned order. After considering submissions and cited decisions, the Tribunal found the issue covered by the cited decisions and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals of the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, setting aside the denial of CENVAT credit on Xerox copies of courier Bill of Entry based on the cited judicial precedents supporting the validity of courier bills of entry for credit.