Case Law Details
DKNV Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Introduction:
The recent decision in the case of DKNV Engineering Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST by CESTAT Ahmedabad has brought clarity on the issue of Cenvat credit denial based on the use of photocopies of purchase invoices. The central question revolved around the denial of credit by the Revenue due to the appellant availing credit on the strength of Xerox copies of invoices instead of original copies.
Detailed Analysis:
The limited issue in this case was whether Cenvat credit availed using Xerox copies of purchase invoices is justifiable. The Revenue contended that the appellant should have taken credit based on original invoices, and the department rightfully denied the credit availed on photocopies. The Revenue supported its stance with various judgments, emphasizing the need for original copies.
However, the CESTAT Ahmedabad took a different view, pointing out that the credit denial was solely based on the appellant’s failure to produce the original copies of invoices. The tribunal observed that there was no dispute regarding the purchase of goods or their use in the manufacturing process. The absence of the original copy of the invoice, according to the tribunal, should not alter the eligibility criteria for availing credit.
The CESTAT referred to several judgments in favor of the appellant, asserting that availing credit on the strength of photocopies is a procedural lapse and cannot be the sole reason to disallow credit. The crucial factor is whether the appellant received the goods, and in the absence of any evidence indicating otherwise, the credit cannot be denied.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the CESTAT Ahmedabad set aside the impugned order and ruled in favor of DKNV Engineering Pvt Ltd. The tribunal emphasized that denial of credit based on the use of photocopies of invoices is a procedural lapse and cannot be a valid reason, especially when there is no dispute regarding the purchase and use of goods. This decision provides clarity on the issue and reinforces the principle that procedural lapses should not overshadow the fulfillment of credit eligibility criteria.
CESTAT held that it is settled that availment of credit on the strength of photo copies of the invoices is just a procedural lapse and cannot be made the basis to disallow the credit. For this reason, in the absence of any evidence that appellant had not received the goods, credit cannot be denied.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
The limited issue involved in the present case is that the Revenue denied Cenvat credit availed on the strength of Xerox copies of the purchase invoices.
2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant.
3. Shri J. A Patel, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant was supposed to take Cenvat credit on the original copies of the invoices, therefore, the department has rightly denied the credit availed on photocopies. He placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(a) 2008 (223) ELT 83 (Tri. Del.) – CCE, Raipur vs. Vandana Energy & Steel P. Limited
(b) 2013 (296) ELT 365 (Tri. Ahmd.) – Hi-Tech Inks P Limited vs. CCE, Daman
(c) 2004 (175) ELT 543 (Tri. Mumbai) – Paranjape Metal Shapers P Limited vs. CCE, Aurangabad
(d) 2014 (314) ELT 221 (Tri. Bang.) – CNC India Tools & Service P Limited vs. CCE, Bangalore
4. I have heard the learned Authorised Representative and perused the record. I find that the credit was denied only on the basis that appellant failed to produce original copy of invoices. However, there is no dispute as regards the purchase of goods and use thereof in the manufacture of final product. The goods is entered in the purchase accounts and therefore, purchase of goods, receipt and use thereof in the manufacture of final products is not disputed. Merely because the original copy of invoice is not available, it cannot alter the important criteria of availing the credit when it is satisfies other criteria. Though the Revenue has relied upon the judgments but there are direct judgments in favour of the appellant also which are cited below:-
(a) CCE & Cus, Vadodara-II vs. Steelco Hujarat Limited – [2010] 3 Taxmann.com 388.
(b) Pepsiso India Holding P. Limited vs. CCE Mumbai – [2017] 77 Taxmann.com 299.
(c) CCE, Kolahpur vs. Shah Precicast P. Limited – [2012] 25 Taxmann.com 299 (Mumbai. CESTAT).
(d) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited vs. CCE, Trichy – [2016] 65 Taxmann.com 121 (Chennai. CESTAT).
5. On going through the judgments, it is settled that availment of credit on the strength of photo copies of the invoices is just a procedural lapse and cannot be made the basis to disallow the credit. For this reason, in the absence of any evidence that appellant had not received the goods, credit cannot be denied. Therefore, I am of the view that reasons for denial of credit is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
Author Bio
