Attested copies should be considered as proof of production of document as original documents misplaced

Wns Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai)

CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim was rejected on sole ground of non-production of original documents. However, as original documents are misplaced, as per provisions of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, attested copies of invoices should be considered as proof of production of document.

Facts- Rejection of refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credits for non-compliance of conditions enumerated in Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 and Notification No. 27/2012CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 read with Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by the refund sanctioning authorities that had been assailed before the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, (Appeals), Raigarh, Navi Mumbai and partially modified through one appellate order, disposing of 10 Orders-in-Original, is assailed before this Tribunal to the extent of denial of refund claimed for the period January, 2012 to March 2015.

In first 10 appeals shown in the cause-title Appellant assailed the legality of the said Order-in-Appeal. In respect of appeal numbers shown in the cause-title in Sr. No. xi to xv, confirmation of rejection of refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the period from January, 2016 for March, 2016 of an amount of Rs.2,64,18,796/- on the ground of non- production of invoices and non-availability of Appellant’s name in the invoices, for April, 2017 to June, 2017 for an amount of Rs.2,17,71,862/- on the ground of no nexus with the output service and invoice not raised in the Appellant address, from October, 2015 to December, 2015 for Rs.68,58,158/- as inadmissible credit including mismatch of FIRC number for Rs.3,22,02,524/-, from April, 2005 to July, 2007 for an amount of Rs.332,77,659/- for none submissions of original documents even at the stage of second round of litigation after being remanded by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and from October, 2016 to December, 2016 for an amount of Rs.1,29,50,527/- paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism in January, 2017 post the end of quarter made on 20.02.2019, 13.01.2020, 05.06.2020, 29.01.2020 and 12.10.2020 respectively are assailed before this Forum by the Appellant.

Conclusion- We do not agree with his finding as the documents were held to be in the position of the Respondent-Department at its Gurgaon Office, concerning which acknowledgment copy was also produced by this Appellant before the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, the attested copies of the invoices could have been considered as proof of production of document evidencing payment of duty, against which creditor’s claimed.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.