https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191995 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the assessee produced a photocopy of the courier bill of entry instead of the original under Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The bill of entry covered multiple consignees and was filed through a courier agency, making it impracticable for each importer to obtain the original document. The assessee was named as consignee, the courier's authorised signatory had endorsed the document, and receipt and use of the imported goods were undisputed. On these facts, the documentary record sufficiently supported the credit claim and the photocopy was treated as admissible evidence. en-us Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 May 2017 08:24:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191995 Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because the assessee produced a photocopy of the courier bill of entry instead of the original under Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The bill of entry covered multiple consignees and was filed through a courier agency, making it impracticable for each importer to obtain the original document. The assessee was named as consignee, the courier's authorised signatory had endorsed the document, and receipt and use of the imported goods were undisputed. On these facts, the documentary record sufficiently supported the credit claim and the photocopy was treated as admissible evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191995