By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 06, 2016: THE issue is regarding denial of CENVAT credit on the ground that the appellant had availed credit on the basis of certified copies of Central Excise invoices and bill of entry, which are attested photocopies of the originals.

The period involved is April 2004 to March 2005 and the SCN was issued on 01/12/2008.

It is the case of the appellant that the material was received in their factory vide original and duplicate invoices but the same were misplaced and subsequently they filed a Police complaint and an affidavit based upon which the Range officer of the supplying unit had issued a certified copy, on which they had availed CENVATcredit.

It is further submitted that since there is no dispute as to the receipt of the inputs and consumption thereof, credit should not be denied as held in a plethora of cases by the Tribunal. As regards the attested photocopy of the bill of entry, it is informed that the same is a courier bill of entry and the courier agency had filed a single bill of entry and the duty liability has been discharged for many customers who are given photocopies for availment of CENVATcredit.

After considering the submissions, the Bench observed -

++ The period involved in this case is during the period April 2004 to March 2005 wherein the provisions of cenvat credit mandates for availment of cenvat credit on the original copy of the invoice and/or triplicate copy of the bill of entry. Nothing is brought to my notice that the said provisions also granted some relaxation for availment of cenvat credit on the attested photocopy of the invoice or the bill of entry, as the case may be. In my considered view, the appellant should have availed cenvat credit only on the original duty paying documents and triplicate copy of the bill of entry.

++ Ground (that demand is time barred) is also incorrect inasmuch as during the material period, returns were filed but there was no requirement to file duty paying documents on which cenvat credit was availed. In the case in hand, it is undisputed that the cenvat credit was availed on the attested photocopy of the invoice and the bill of entry which, presumably must not have been submitted along with the returns filed with the authorities. In view of this extended period which has been invoked seems to be correct.

The appeal was rejected.

(See 2016-TIOL-52-CESTAT-MUM)