TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts, in brief, are as under:- The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pneumatic tyres and are availing cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. During the period 1.4.2004 to 31.12.2004, it was observed by the department that appellants took cenvat credit on photocopies of bills of entries. As the originals were lost, they had lodged FIR on 13.09.2004 with Police Authorities, Bhiwadi in regard to loss of the bills of entries. Appellants had also taken credit on inputs stored in the godown outside factory for which permission had been granted from the Departmental Authorities. A show cause notice dated 3.5.2005 was issued (a) proposing disallowance of credit amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls of entry of 7 nos. from the concerned Customs Authorities. They accordingly availed credit of Rs. 22,83,379/- pertaining to 7 reconstructed bill of entry. The Audit party objected to the same and once again vide entry dated 23.03.2006, the appellant reversed the credit of Rs. 22,83,379/-. A further show cause notice dated 14.02.2008 was issued to the appellant alleging wrong availment of cenvat credit of Rs. 22,83,379/- taken on re-constructed bills of entry. After adjudication, the disallowance of credit was confirmed by the order-in-original dated 16.01.2009. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the demand, interest and penalty. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31.03.2010 is impugned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of the re-constructed copies of the bills of entry. The appellant had originals of the documents in dispute. They lost the documents and FIR has also been lodged for the same. During the time of audit, the appellants could not place the original documents before the officers. But, however, they placed the photocopies. The credit was denied for the reason that bills of entry are photocopies. Later, they obtained reconstructed copies of these documents. Credit availed on reconstructed copies was also denied. It is seen from the documents that these reconstructed bills of entry have been attested as true copies by the officers of customs. By such authentication and attestation by the concerned officers of Customs Authorities, the copies of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of records. There is no dispute raised in any of the two adjudications regarding the duty paid on these documents. 9. In Klockner Supreme Pentaplast Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore reported in 1999 (114) ELT 253 (Tribunal), this Tribunal has observed that the credit should not be denied merely for the reason that the bills of entry are reconstructed copies. From the facts of this case, as discussed above, and applying the ratio laid down in the above judgement, we are able to conclude that the appellant is entitled to avail credit on reconstructed copies of bills of entry. So, the first ground for denial of credit is answered in favour of the assessee. The second ground on which credit is denied is that the documents are more than a year old. The C....