CENVAT credit denied on the ground that the same was taken on the strength of a Xerox copy of Courier bill of entry which is not prescribed document under rule 9 of CCR.

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3166

Case:-ARBES TOOLS PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAIII

Citation:- 2016-TIOL-399-CESTAT-MUM

Issue:-CENVAT credit denied on the ground that the same was taken on the strength of a Xerox copy of Courier bill of entry which is not prescribed document under rule 9 of CCR.

Brief Facts:-The manufacturer of excisable goods viz. "encapsulation machine, parts of accessories", falling under Chapter heading 84798970 and 84799040 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant imported certain imported components and filed a courier bill of entry on which they have taken the CENVAT Credit which was denied by the Adjudicating Authority by issue of show cause notice and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order in Original and now the appellant has filed this present appeal. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the courier bill of entry is admissible documents for taking the CENVAT Credit under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Appellant’s Contention:-The appellant stated that as per Bill of Entry Regulations, 1976, courier bill of entry is a valid document for clearance of any imported goods. He has further stated that he has received the imported inputs and utilized the same in the manufacture of final product cleared on payment of duty and both the authorities below have wrongly denied him the benefit of CENVAT Credit. Reliance is being placed on the following judgments in support of his claim:

a)CCE vs. Fusion Electronics P. Ltd. 2011 (264) ELT 513
b) Controls & Devices Coimbatore P. Ltd. 2008 (222) ELT 470 2008TIOL284CESTATMAD
c) Macneill engg. Ltd. 2009 (234) ELT 345

Respondent’s Contention: -The ld. AR reiterates the finding of the lower Authorities. The objection of the department is that the appellants have not produced the original bill of entry and the photocopy of the courier bill of entry or consolidated courier bill of entry is not admissible under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Reasoning Of Judgment: - There is no dispute that the material on which the credit has been taken was imported by the appellant and was used for manufacturing of the product. The case laws cited above are squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and thus, it has been held that the appellant have correctly claimed the CENVAT Credit on the photocopy of the courier bill of entry filed by them and CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on mere technical grounds.

Decision: -Appeal allowed.

Comment:- In this case, the credit was denied on the basis of photocopy of courier bill of entry. Department denied the credit on the grounds that the original bill of entry is the valid document for availing the credit under rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, credit cannot be allowed on the photocopy of courier bill of entry. However, hon’ble Tribunal allowed the credit on the basis of case laws cited by the appellant and holding that so long as import of goods and their use in manufacture of dutiable goods is not disputed, the credit cannot be allowed merely on the technical grounds.

Prepared By: - Alakh Bhandari

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3166

Post a Comment

Query