AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "i) Whether, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the CENVAT credit of Rs. 27,33,393/- on unverified/re-constructed bills of entry without giving a chance to Revenue to verify them when the same were not proper/legal documents as per CENVAT Credit Rules. ii) Whether, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the cenvat credit of Rs. 1,03,336/- taken on the documents which were of more than one year whereas the Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 provides that cenvat credit in respect of inputs is to be taken immediately on receipt of inputs in the factory of manufacture. c) Whether, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the CENVAT credit of Rs. 8,120/- on Air Conditioners on the basis of the Board's Circul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spute, therefore, narrows down to the admissibility of the cenvat credit in respect 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 befo4re 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 authenticatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed". Therefore, credit on duty paid on air conditioners installed in office of the factory is admissible. The issues are held in favour of the appellant." 6. He has also relied upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Commissioner vs. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2015) 323 ELT 712 wherein it has been held as under:- "5. We have considered the said judgment. Therein, the appeal was considered on two substantial questions of law as framed by their Lordships as follows: "(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in granting CENVAT credit in spite of the explicit legal provisions contained in Rule 57Q(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and (2) Whether the Tribunal is right in setting ....