Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Cords Cable Industries Ltd vs C.C.E.- Jaipur-I on 25 September, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI COURT NO. III Date of hearing/Decision: 25.09.13 Appeal No. E/1382/2010-EX[SM] M/s. Cords Cable Industries Ltd. Appellant Vs. C.C.E.- Jaipur-I Respondent
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.124(DK)/CE/JPR-I/2010, dt. 10.03.2010, passed by Commissioner, (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur-I] For approval and signature:
Honble Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Present: Sh. P.K.Mittal, Advocate - for the appellant Sh. Davinder Singh, Jt. CDR - for the Respondent Coram: Rakesh Kumar Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO. 57870 /2013 Per Rakesh Kumar:-
The appellant are manufacturer of Power Cables chargeable to Central Excise duty. During the period 2004 they took Cenvat Credit of Rs. 67,441/- on the basis of two invoices No.77 dt. 17.10.03 and invoice No. 78 dt. 20.10.03. Subsequently in course of audit they could not produce the original copies and produced only photocopies. On this basis after issue of Show Cause Notice Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dt. 26.02.09 confirmed the above mentioned Cenvat Credit demand along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount. On appeal being filed, this order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dt. 10.03.10 against which this appeal has been filed. Earlier the Tribunal vide miscellaneous order dt. 27.09.2010 had directed the appellant to produce original copies of the invoices and in pursuance of this the appellant have produced the extra carbon copies of both the invoices under miscellaneous application no. E/mis./756/2010 which have now been placed on record.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Sh. P.K.Mittal, learned counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the demand had been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that at the time of audit, the appellant were not in a position to produce the original or duplicate copy of the invoices on the basis of which the Cenvat Credit has been taken, that now they have traced the carbon copy of both the invoices which are extra copies, that as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7(iii) of the impugned order, there is no dispute regarding the receipt of duty paid inputs covered under the said invoices in the factory and their use in the manufacture of finished goods which were cleared on payment of appropriate duty, that there is no allegation also that the said invoices are bogus, that the only objection of the Department is that the invoices are not original but are photocopy/extra copy on the basis of which the Cenvat Credit has been taken and those are not valid documents for Cenvat Credit, that this view of the Department is incorrect as the appellant have now to produced carbon/extra copy of the invoices, that during the period of dispute, in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the invoices issued by a manufacturer for clearance of inputs and capital goods from his factory are the prescribed documents for availing Cenvat Credit and it is not mentioned in the rules that the Cenvat Credit can be taken only on the basis of original or duplicate copies of the invoices and that in view of this, denial of Cenvat Credit and imposition of is not correct. He also cited the judgment of Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CCE Vs. Stelko Strips Ltd., reported in 2010 (255) ELT-397 (P&H) where it has been held that Cenvat Credit can be taken on the strength of private challans so long as there was proper certification that the duty had been paid and the credit had not been taken earlier on the basis of the same document and that Honble P&H in case of Ralson India Ltd. Vs. CCE, reported in 2006 (202) ELT-759 (P&H) has held that availment of credit on the basis of original copy of invoice would be admissible.
4. Sh. Davinder Singh, learned Jt. CDR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that as held in several judgments of the Tribunal cited in para 7(iii) of the impugned order, the Cenvat Credit on the basis of carbon copy/extra copy of the invoices is not admissible. He also pleaded that as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there is no supporting evidence or verification by the Jurisdictional superintendent of the Central Excise regarding the genuineness of these invoices.
5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The Cenvat Credit has been denied only on the basis that the same has been availed on the basis of photocopy/extra copy of the invoices. In my view the very basis on which the Cenvat Credit has been denied is not correct. While Tribunal in several judgments as cited in the para 7(iii) of the impugned order had held that Cenvat Credit on the basis of photocopy of invoices can not be allowed unless there is verification from the concerned Jurisdictional Range Officer, none of these judgments is about admissibility of the Cenvat Credit on the basis of carbon copy of the invoice. In this case the appellant have now produced extra copy/carbon copy of the invoices. As per the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), there is no dispute regarding receipt of duty paid inputs under these invoices and their use in the manufacture of finished goods cleared on payment of duty. It is also not the allegation that Cenvat Credit on the basis of these invoices has been taken more than once. In view of this, denial of Cenvat Credit on the basis of Carbon copy/extra copy of the invoices and imposition of penalty for taking wrong Cenvat Credit is not correct. The impugned order therefore is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Order dictated in the open court) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) S.Kaur 1