2017 (9) TMI 447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....brief facts are that the appellant a manufacturer engaged in manufacturing Aluminium Ingot alloys and clearing finished goods on payment of duty, availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 19,86,081/- pertaining to raw materials, on photo copies of bills of entry during the period March 2011 to April 2011, as per Annexure A to the show-cause notice, comprising a total of six bills of entry.  Vide show-cause notice dated 02/03/2012, pursuant to scrutiny of Cenvat documents, it appeared that the appellant have taken credit on photocopies of the bills of entry but they could not produce the relevant original copies of the bills of entry. It further appeared that photocopy is not admissible in view of Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Appellant wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 2011, but appellant failed to produce original documents earlier. Subsequently, the Cenvat documents in original were submitted for the first time with written reply dated 26.4.2012 received by the Department on 2.5.2012. The contention of the appellant that due to technical problem in their plant, they could not get back the documents earlier, and were traced later was held to be not sustainable, observing that documents in original were not available with the appellant till May, 2012. Accordingly, it was held that they have violated the provisions of Rule 3 read with Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Hence the present demand was confirmed along with appropriation, with interest and further equal amount of penalty was imposed under Ru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp; Further, admittedly bill of entry is the prescribed document for availing CENVAT credit /CVD on import of input, as prescribed under Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. No discrepancy as required under Rule 9(2), regarding contents in the bill of entry, has been pointed out. As such, the denial of credit by the courts below is erroneous. He further relies on the ruling of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara-II Vs. Steelco Gujarat Ltd. - 2010 (255) ELT 518 (Guj.), wherein the credit was availed on the basis of Xerox copy of the triplicate of the invoice duly attested by the Range Supdt. at the supplier's end to the evidence that the duty paying character of the invoice in....