M/S. Caparo Fasteners vs C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-I

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.56(AKJ)CE/JPR-I/2012 dated 12.04.2012 by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur].

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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?

M/s. Caparo Fasteners .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-I .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri H. Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellants

Ms. Ranjana Jha, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 21.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO.50260/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying Cenvat Credit taken by the appellant on 4th copy of the invoices.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant initially took the Cenvat Credit on inputs but it was found that during the course of the investigation that appellant has taken Cenvat Credit on the strength of photocopies / extra copy of the invoices. They reversed the Cenvat Credit on 29.02.2008 but they obtained original fourth copy of the invoices from the supplier of the goods and took Cenvat Credit on 29.02.2008. A Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 23.02.2010 to deny Cenvat Credit on the 4th copy of the invoices saying that said document is not a proper document as per rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Therefore, proceedings were initiated and impugned order was passed. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before me.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they have taken the credit on 29.02.2008 on the strength of original 4th copy of the invoices. It is not disputed by the department that goods have been used by the appellant in manufacturing of the final goods and goods were duty paid. Therefore, as held by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of C.C.E. Vs. Stelko Strips Ltd 2010 (255) E.L.T. 397 (P&H), appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit. He also relied on the decision in the case of C.C.E. Vs. Ralson India Ltd. 2006 (202) E.L.T. 759 (P&H). Therefore, he prayed that impugned order be set aside and appeal be allowed.

4. On the other hand Ld. AR submits that as per rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the original copy of the invoices and in this case they have taken the Cenvat Credit on the 4th copy of the invoice and therefore they are not entitled to take Cenvat Credit. She further submits that in the case of Tayal Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Meerut-2012 (286) E.L.T. 248 (Tri-Del). This Tribunal has held that on photocopy of the Bill of Entry without certification from the assessing officer, the appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat Credit.

5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

6. In this case appellant has taken the Cenvat Credit on the strength of original 4th copy of the invoice which is certified by the supplier of the goods. The ld. AR relied on the decision in the case of Tayal Steel Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) to show that without certification from the concerned range superintendent, the appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat Credit. I find that facts of the said case are not applicable to the facts of this case as in the case of Tayal Steel Pvt Ltd (Supra) it is a case of import and Bill of Entry was issued. Bill of Entry is assessed by the custom officers but invoices on the strength of which assessee has taken Cenvat Credit is issued by the supplier of the goods and there is no concern of the range officer to deal with that.

7. In these circumstances, I hold that appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat Credit on the strength of original 4th copy of the invoices as held by the Honble High Court of P&H in the case of Stelko Strips Ltd. Therefore impugned order is set aside, appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

E/1544/2012-EX(SM)