75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

March 2016

[2016-TIOL-399-CESTAT-MUM] Arbes Tools P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
When the imported material was used for manufacturing final product, credit taken on a photocopy of courier bill of entry was allowable.

Facts
The Appellant imported inputs and utilized the same in manufacture of the final product which was cleared on payment of duty. The lower authorities denied the benefit of CENVAT credit stating that original bill of entry was not produced and photocopy of a courier bill of entry is not a valid document under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Held
The Tribunal noted that there is no dispute that the material on which credit is taken was imported and used for manufacturing the product. Therefore CENVAT credit cannot be denied on mere technical grounds and the appeal was allowed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2016] 65 taxmann.com 88 (Ahmedabad-CESTAT) Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat vs. Miranda Tools

[2016-TIOL-400-CESTAT-MUM] PrecisionMetals vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad