C.C.E. Delhi-Iii vs M/S. Shyam Telecom Ltd

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 128/CE/DLH/2014 dated: 24.06.2014 passed by CCE Delhi-III]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

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?

C.C.E. Delhi-III ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Shyam Telecom Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. R K Mishra, DR for the Appellants

Sh. S. C. Kamra (Advocate) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.01.09.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 53986 /2015

Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):

The revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, wherein cenvat credit taken on the basis of photocopy of courier bill of entry has been allowed in favour of the respondent.

1.1 The Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that photocopy of courier bill of entry is not a prescribed document in terms of sub rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, the Revenue has relied on the Circular dated 29.08.2007 issued by the CBEC to state that cenvat credit is not permissible on the disputed documents.

2. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a reasoned and speaking order holding that the appellant is eligible for cenvat credit on the photocopy of the courier bill of entry. To substantiate his above stand, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on various decisions of this Tribunal wherein the issue decided is to the effect are that when the courier agency has been permitted to file common bill of entry on behalf of several importers, obviously all such importers cannot be given original documents, and as such, production of photocopies of bill of entry cannot be denied with the benefit of cenvat credit. Further, it has also been held in the said decisions that though the bill of entry is filed by the courier agency, the details of each importer  consignee stands mentioned therein, and thus, considering the basic category of imports and considering that customs have prescribed the different procedure for filing Bill of entry, the credit cannot be denied. I find from the available records that the courier bill of entry in question contains, the name of the present appellants as the consignee along with other consignees. Since the said bill of entry has been endorsed by the authorized signatory of the courier service, and in view of the fact that the receipt of the disputed goods and their utilization for the intended purpose have not been disputed by the Central Excise Department, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant.

3. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and as such, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

3 | Page

E/55305/2014-Ex[SM]