2008 (9) TMI 786 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - receipt of inputs - proof - Held that - the initial burden that goods had not been received by the appellant has been discharged by the Revenue, therefore, the onus is on the appellant to prove that the duty paid goods were actually received in the factory and used in the excisable goods - matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of credit and imposition of penalties based on vehicle numbers in invoices, transporter denial of goods transportation, and lack of godown/registered premises.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed challenging the denial of credit and imposition of penalties due to discrepancies in the invoices, specifically regarding vehicle numbers, transporter denial of goods transportation, and absence of godown/registered premises. The appellants argued that despite these issues, the duty paid inputs were indeed received in the factory and used in the manufacturing process of the final products cleared with duty payment. They contended that the credit should not be denied solely based on the mentioned grounds, and other evidence should be considered. The Revenue, however, relied on a previous Tribunal decision and asserted that once it is established that the vehicle numbers or transporters are not valid, the burden shifts to the assessee to prove the receipt and utilization of duty paid inputs. The Revenue presented evidence showing discrepancies in the invoices and transportation, leading to the denial of credit. In some cases, it was found that the dealers issuing the invoices had not received the inputs.

The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of M/s Rajeev Alloys, where it was established that if the vehicles mentioned in the invoices were incapable of transporting the specified quantity, the burden shifts to the assessee to prove the receipt and utilization of goods. In light of this precedent, the Tribunal found that the initial burden of proving non-receipt of goods had been met by the Revenue, thus placing the onus on the appellants to demonstrate the actual receipt and use of duty paid goods in manufacturing excisable products. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in line with the principles outlined in the M/s Rajeev Alloys case. The appeals were disposed of through remand, emphasizing the need for further examination based on the established legal precedent.