2009 (10) TMI 709 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against demand of duty and penalty set aside by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Dispute regarding receipt of raw materials by registered dealer.
3. Evidence produced by present respondents to support receipt of raw materials.
4. Revenue's contention of dealer supplying non-dutiable scrap.
5. Payment made by respondents during investigation.
6. Compliance with formalities for availing credit.
7. Findings of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding receipt and use of inputs.
8. Payment to supplier through banking channel.
9. Lack of challenge to findings in present appeal.
10. Absence of reference from supplier regarding invoicing to respondents.
11. Dismissal of appeal by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside a demand of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 6,71,473. The dispute arose from the Revenue denying credit to the present respondents based on the belief that the registered dealer did not actually receive the raw materials, as indicated by the vehicle numbers on the invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) found in favor of the present respondents, noting the evidence provided, including RG 23A Part I copies, goods receipt notes, payment of duty, and manufacturing processes. The Revenue contended that the dealer may have supplied non-dutiable scrap instead of raw materials. Despite the respondents making the disputed payment during the investigation, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings that the inputs were received, used in manufacturing, and cleared with duty payment. The Tribunal also highlighted the lack of challenge to these findings in the appeal, as well as the absence of any statement from the supplier regarding invoicing specifics to the respondents. As a result, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

This judgment underscores the importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims in tax disputes, as demonstrated by the present respondents producing various documents to establish the receipt and utilization of raw materials. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the factual findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the compliance with formalities for availing credit, the payment made through a banking channel, and the lack of contradiction in the evidence presented. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized the significance of the supplier's role in the proceedings, highlighting the absence of any assertion from the supplier regarding the nature of the invoices issued to the present respondents. The dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal signifies a thorough consideration of the evidence and findings presented before it, ultimately upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the present respondents.