9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , SDR, for the Respondent. [Order: per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for disposal. 2. The lower authorities have denied Cenvat credit of Rs. 38,30,935/- to the appellant for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m for Cenvat credit relatable to the two invoices is not pressed. As regards the 10 original bills of entry, the ld. consultant submits that these documents are admissible for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit of the CVD paid on the inputs covered thereunder. With regard to the remaining documents (xerox copies of bills of entry), it is submitted that a reasonable opportunity was not grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f entry was one of the 'Modvatable' documents. The ld. consultant has brought out this distinction. It appears that any copy of a bill of entry originally prepared is an admissible document for the purpose of Cenvat credit of the CVD paid on the inputs covered therein. If that be so, the lower authorities have erred in denying to the appellant Cenvat credit taken on the strength of original bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of entry in question. It is not the case of the department that the proper officer of customs who originally dealt with the relevant bills of entry is not competent to certify/attest xerox copies of such bills. 4. While reiterating that the appellant is not entitled to Cenvat credit of the duty covered by the two invoices, we allow this appeal by way of remand directing the original authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
