2013 (3) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant during the period from February, 2008 to October, 2008 on the basis of either photocopies of invoices or duplicate copies of the invoices of input service provider. The deptt. being the view that the documents on the basis of which Cenvat credit has been taken are not valid documents as prescribed in Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, issued a show cause notice for denial of the Cenvat credit along with interest. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 12-11-2009 confirmed the Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 2,99,520/- along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant. This order of the Asstt. Commissioner was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 31-3-2010. Against....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....disallowing the Cenvat credit is not correct. Shri Arora cited the judgment of Hon'ble Chhatisgarh High Court in the case of Union of India v. Hira Steels Ltd. reported as 2011 (273) E.L.T. 370 (Chha.) wherein it was held that Cenvat credit on the basis of photocopies or extra copies of the invoices can be allowed when the same have been verified by the jurisdictional Superintendent of the input supplier and also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Steelco Gujarat Ltd. reported as 2010 (255) E.L.T. 518 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Cenvat credit can be taken on the basis of Xerox copies duly attested by the jurisdictional Superintendent. He also cited the judgment of Tribunal vide Final Order No. A-837/2012, da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der or by an input service distributor is a valid document for availing Cenvat credit. In this case, during the period of dispute, while the appellants-company had several factories, the head office of the appellants-company was not registered as input service distributor and as such no invoices under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 were being issued by the head office as input service distributor. 5. From the records of this case, it is clear that the appellants unit has taken Cenvat credit on the basis of photocopies/duplicate copies of the invoices. So far as duplicate copies of the invoices are concerned, the appellant plead that the original copies have been lost and therefore duplicate copies had been issued by the supp....