NEPTUNE STAMPINGS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 70,559/ - on 28 -1 -05, on the basis of certified copy of bill of entry. The appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has upheld the stand taken by the original adjudicating authority that certified copy of the bill of entry is not a valid document for availment of credit. Further, a penalty of equal amount has been imposed and interest also has been demanded.

(2.) LEARNED advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the goods were imported by the appellant and bill of entry was in their name only. Since the importers copy of bill of entry was lost, they had obtained certificate from the Customs officer to show genuineness of the bill of entry. There is no dispute about receipt of the goods and eligibility of Cenvat. He also submits that Rule 9 does not bar availment of credit on the basis of certified copy of bill of entry. He drew my attention to the Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules and points among the prescribed documents, bill of entry is also listed as one of the document. He relies upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sehmbey Products - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 156 (Tri. -Del.) and several other decisions of the Tribunal rendered earlier. On the other hand, learned SDR submits that credit cannot be taken on the entries/certified copy of the bill of entry and what is meant in the list of the prescribed documents is copy of the bill of entry of the importer. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Raymond Apparel Ltd. - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 279 (Tri. -Mumbai).

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that this case is similar on facts to the case of M/s. Sehmbey Products cited by the learned advocate. In that case, the invoices were lost and photo copies were got certified by the Central Excise Superintendent and in this case, certification has been made by the Customs. In view of the fact that bill of entry is in the name of the appellant and that there is no dispute about the receipt or utilization of the input, substantive requirement of law has been fulfilled. Further, it cannot be said that bill of entry, the document which has been prescribed cannot be certified by the Customs officer in case the importers copy is lost for any reason. In fact, Revenue should have verified the fact whether the inputs have been received or not to ensure that there is no misuse of bill of entry and Cenvat credit. In the absence of any such investigation or verification, the appellant is eligible for the credit. As regards case -laws cited by the learned SDR, I find that in that case, the Tribunal had observed that the invoices were not in the name of the appellant and this was the main ground which was considered by the Tribunal. Since the case is not similar on facts, the same is not applicable.