Successful appeal allows cenvat credit based on quadruplicate invoice, despite missing duplicate copy.

The appeal was successful as the court allowed the availability of cenvat credit based on the quadruplicate copy of the invoice, despite the absence of the duplicate copy. The appellant, a manufacturer, obtained the quadruplicate copy after losing the duplicate and presented it along with an affidavit confirming receipt of the inputs. The court relied on previous Tribunal decisions permitting cenvat credit based on secondary evidence like the quadruplicate copy, citing relevant case law. The impugned order denying the credit was overturned, aligning with established precedents.

---

---

Issues: Availability of cenvat credit based on quadruplicate copy of invoice.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was against the Order-in-Appeal No. 156/2012 dated 17.10.2012, concerning the availability of cenvat credit based on the quadruplicate copy of the invoice. The appellant, a manufacturer of various products, procured inputs from M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) but faced objections from the Department regarding the availed cenvat credit due to the absence of the duplicate copy of the invoice accompanying the goods. The Department contended that the credit was based on the quadruplicate copy of the invoice found in the appellant's records. Both lower authorities had denied the cenvat credit, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

During the proceedings, the appellant's consultant explained that although the duplicate copy of the invoice was lost, they obtained and presented the quadruplicate copy after liaising with the supplier. Additionally, the appellant submitted an affidavit confirming the receipt of the inputs. The consultant argued that previous Tribunal decisions supported the appellant's entitlement to cenvat credit based on the quadruplicate copy in the absence of the original duplicate copy. The consultant referenced cases like Rathi Special Steels Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-I 2017 (352) ELT 219 (Tri. Del.) and Cords Cable Industries Limited vs. CCE, Jaipur-I 2015 (320) ELT 155 (Tri. Del.) to support this claim.

On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the lower authority's decision, asserting that the quadruplicate copy of the invoice was not a valid document for claiming cenvat credit. After considering both sides and examining the records, it was noted that the main dispute revolved around the permissibility of cenvat credit based on the quadruplicate copy of the invoice. Despite the loss of the duplicate copy, the appellant managed to obtain the quadruplicate copy from the supplier, supported by an affidavit confirming the receipt of the inputs.

The presiding Member referred to the case laws cited by the appellant's consultant, emphasizing that previous Tribunal decisions allowed cenvat credit based on secondary evidence, such as an extra copy of the invoice, in the absence of the original document. Notably, the Tribunal's decision in Rathi Special Steels Ltd. case highlighted the admissibility of secondary evidence under the proviso to Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, the impugned order denying the cenvat credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, aligning with the precedents established in earlier cases.

---