2018 (4) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns decision disallowing CENVAT credit on courier bill - Legal precedent and rules interpretation key

Tronics Zone Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore North

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the decision disallowing CENVAT credit on the courier bill of entry. The judgment emphasized the ... CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial on the ground that the courier bill of entry is not included as a prescribed documents - Held that: - credit has rightly been taken on courier bill of entry - reliance placed in the case of Precision Electronics Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, 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 - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Disallowance of CENVAT credit on courier bill of entry.Analysis:The appeal was against the order disallowing the credit of a specific amount along with interest and penalty. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing PCB assemblies, availed CENVAT credit on courier bill of entry, which was not listed as a prescribed document under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The show-cause notice alleged the improper availing of credit, leading to a demand confirmation by the Jt. Commissioner, which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). The appellant contended that the impugned order was legally unsustainable, citing binding judicial precedents and arguing that CENVAT credit denial was merely on technical grounds. The appellant emphasized that Rule 9 of the CCR includes a bill of entry issued by a manufacturer or first stage dealer, without distinguishing between a normal bill of entry and a courier bill of entry. Referring to the case law, the appellant argued that a courier bill of entry should be treated as a bill of entry for CENVAT credit purposes, as established by previous decisions such as Ruby Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, CCE vs. Fusion Electronics (P) Ltd., and Precision Electronics Ltd. vs. CCE.The Assistant Commissioner reiterated the findings of the impugned order, opposing the appellant's arguments. However, after hearing both sides and examining the records, the Judicial Member concluded that the issue was decisively settled in favor of the appellant by various Tribunal decisions cited during the proceedings. By following the precedents and the established legal principles, the Judicial Member held that the credit taken on the courier bill of entry was valid. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the credit was deemed legally unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the order and allowing the appeal of the appellant with any consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the decision disallowing CENVAT credit on the courier bill of entry. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal precedent and the interpretation of relevant rules in determining the eligibility of credit claims, ultimately providing relief to the appellant based on established legal principles and previous Tribunal decisions.