Appeal granted for Cenvat credit on imported goods, procedural grounds denied. Commissioner's order holds legal weight.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of Cenvat credit on imported goods distributed to various units based on Bill of Entry and invoice copies. The Tribunal emphasized that denying credit on procedural grounds was unwarranted as long as inputs were used for manufacturing excisable goods. It considered the order of the Commissioner, Gurgaon, as having legal weight and binding precedence, ultimately concluding that the appellant was entitled to the Cenvat credit benefit.

---

---

Issues:
Availability of Cenvat credit on goods imported by the appellant and distributed to various units based on Bill of Entry and invoice.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order concerning the availability of Cenvat credit on imported goods distributed to different units by the appellant. The department contended that availing credit based on a photocopy, as per Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was incorrect. The appellant argued that a similar issue was resolved favorably for their Gurgaon unit, emphasizing the acceptance of findings by the Committee of Chief Commissioner. However, the Adjudicating Authority did not accept this, citing a precedent where they were not bound by another Commissioner's order.

The appellant referred to a judgment from the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, highlighting that once the Committee of Chief Commissioner accepted an order, the department could not deviate from it in similar circumstances. The Department reiterated its stance that Rule 9 does not allow Cenvat credit based on photocopies of invoices, urging the upholding of the Adjudicating Authority's order. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal focused on the narrow issue of Cenvat credit availability based on photocopies of bills of entries and invoices. It noted that the appellant dispatched goods to units from the port to save costs, with no revenue loss reported. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as inputs were used for manufacturing excisable goods, denying Cenvat credit on procedural grounds was unwarranted.

The Tribunal reviewed the order of the Commissioner, Gurgaon, which was considered as having legal weight and binding precedence. After analyzing the facts, legal provisions, and judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant the benefit of Cenvat credit based on the circumstances presented.

---