9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of Xerox copy of bills of entry which was detected during an audit of the appellant. A show cause notice dated 2.12.2009 was issued to the appellant for denying the cenvat credit. During the adjudication proceedings appellant did not produce the original bills of entry for explaining that the inputs were duty paid and were used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods. Before commissioner (A) a plea was taken that the original bills and entry were destroyed in a fire of applicants factory far which an FIR was also lodged. However, Commissioner (A) did not agree with the contention raised by the appellant because copy of FIR produced by them was with respect to fire in their factory and not with respect to the loss of the concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t disputed and is commonly understood that the cenvat credit as per the provisions has to be taken on the basis of the original copy of the document (bills of entry in this case). Appellant has taken the argument that as per several judicial pronouncements cenvat credit on the basis of Xerox copy of bills of entry is admissible. It is observed from the relied upon case laws that in the case of CCE Kolhapur Vs. Precicast P. Ltd. (supra) efforts were made by the appellants in that case to obtain certified copy of the document showing duty paid on the inputs from the concerned Commissionerate. Similarly in the case of Controls & Drives Coimbatore (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore (supra) there were 4 or 5 importers who imported the inputs on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pies of bills and entry to justify that cenvat credit was properly taken. It has been rightly observed by Commissioner (A) that copy of FIR only talks about the fire in the factory and not about the loss of the concern bills of entries. It is also not clear from the facts stated by the appellant in their appeal as to when the fire broke out, whether it was before the adjudicating proceeding were completed by the original adjudicating authority or afterwards. Because no such discussion is coming out from the order in original that appellant has claimed the originals to have been lost in a fire. The fire, if any must have broken out only after adjudication proceedings got completed. Therefore, argument of the appellants that the original bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
