M/S.Precision Electronics Ltd vs Cce, Noida

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.NOI/ EXCUS/ 000/ APPL/ 106/ 2014 dated 22.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, NOIDA]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE 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?

M/s.Precision Electronics Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Noida  Respondent

Present for the Appellant :Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Mr. Devender Singh, JCDR

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 08.07.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 54113/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Noida, wherein cenvat credit has been denied to the appellant on the ground that photocopy of the courier Bill of Entry is not a proper document in terms of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.

2. The ld. Advocate Ms. Sukriti Das appearing for the appellant submits that based on the courier invoices issued by M/s. DHL Express India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant had taken additional duty of customs as cenvat credit. She further submits that the said courier document has been duly authenticated by the Customs Authorities posted at the International Airport. It is her submission that since, the said documents were issued to various parties named therein, the original cannot be generated for each and every consignee, entitling them to take the cenvat credit. She further submits that since the duty paid character of the disputed goods, their receipt and utilization by the appellant are not in dispute, the credit cannot be denied on the sole ground that the said document is a photocopy of the main bill of entry, especially in view of the fact that the said document has been duly authenticated by the Customs Officers posted at the port of import. To substantiate her stand that the appellant is eligible for cenvat credit on the basis of photocopy of the courier bill of entry, the ld. Advocate has cited the following decisions of the Tribunal:-

1. CCE vs. Fusion Electronics (P) Ltd. reported in 2011 (264) ELT 513 (Tri.-Del.)

2. Pramod Telecom (P) Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2013-TIOL-830-CESTAT-DEL.

3. Controls & Drives Coimbatore (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2008 (222) ELT 470 (Tri. Chennai)

4. Ruby Mills Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2007 (220) ELT 212 (Tri. Mumbai)

5. Shivkripa Ispat (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 2010 (262) ELT 477 (Tri.-Mumbai)

6. UOI v. Kataria Wires Ltd. reported in 2009 (241) ELT 31 (M.P.)

7. CCE & Cus. V. Steelco Gujarat Ltd. reported in 2010 (255) ELT 518 (Guj.)

8. CCE v. Stelko Strips Ltd. reported 2010 (255) ELT 397 ( P & H)

9. Akzo Nobel Coatings (India) Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2013 (290) ELT 108 (Tri. Bang.)

10. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2004- TIOL  904-CESTAT-DEL.

3. Per contra, Shri Devender Singh, the ld. JCDR appearing for the Revenue, while reiterating the findings recorded in the impugned order, further submits that in absence of any statutory provisions recognizing the photocopy of the courier bill of entry as the valid document for taking cenvat credit, credit taken on the same by the appellant is not proper, and as such, denial of cenvat benefit is justified. He further relies on the Circular of CBEC issued from file F.No.450/97/2005-Cus.IV, clarifying that cenvat credit is permissible only on the normal Bill of Entry and not on the basis of photocopy of the courier Bill of Entry.

4. Heard the ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

5. It is not in dispute that the goods imported through courier agency M/s. DHL Express Services have suffered additional duty of customs (CVD). Since, the Courier Bill of Entry has been issued by the courier agency in favour of various parties/consignees, there was no scope for issuing the original invoice in favour of each and every party. However, since those photocopies of the courier bill of entry issued in favour of the consignees are duly authenticated by the authorities posted at the port of import, the authenticity of the said documents cannot be doubted and credit cannot be denied for the reason that the same is not a prescribed document for availment of cenvat credit. In this contest, I find that the decision cited by the ld. Advocate for the appellant has squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein the cenvat credit has been extended on the photocopy of the bill of entry issued by the courier agency by holding that the same was special category of imports and the credit cannot be denied.

6. Considering the fact that the cenvat credit has been allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on the Courier Bill of Entry issued by the courier agency. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

4