2015 (4) TMI 1036 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Issue of invoices without actual receipt of goods - Held that - as the respondent has made all the payments through account payee cheque to the first stage dealer who has accepted that they have delivered the goods along with invoices. Moreover, no statement of transporter have been recorded to ascertain the fact that respondent has not received the goods. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order on merits. Further, I find that in this case show cause notice has been issued in September 2011 whereas transaction involved the period August 2006 to September 2006. Therefore, I hold that show cause notice is barred by limitation also. In these circumstances, impugned order is upheld. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat Credit to the respondent by the Ld. Commissioner (A)
- Allegations against the respondent for availing inadmissible Cenvat Credit
- Burden of proof on the respondent to prove receipt of goods
- Challenge by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (A)

Analysis:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit: The Revenue appealed against the Ld. Commissioner (A)'s order setting aside the denial of Cenvat Credit to the respondent. The respondent had procured goods from a first stage dealer, who in turn procured goods from another entity. Allegations were made that the goods were not physically received by the respondent, leading to the denial of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalties.

2. Allegations of Availing Inadmissible Credit: The Revenue contended that the respondent could not avail Cenvat Credit as the original manufacturer did not have a manufacturing facility. The burden of proof was shifted to the respondent to demonstrate physical receipt of the goods. The Revenue relied on a previous case to support their argument regarding the necessity of proving receipt of goods for Cenvat Credit eligibility.

3. Burden of Proof: The main contention revolved around whether the respondent had received the goods for which Cenvat Credit was claimed. The Ld. Commissioner (A) dropped the charges against the respondent based on evidence provided, including payment records and documentation showing receipt of goods. The respondent argued that the Revenue failed to conduct a thorough investigation to prove non-receipt of goods.

4. Challenge by the Revenue: The Revenue challenged the Ld. Commissioner (A)'s decision, arguing that the respondent had not adequately proven receipt of goods and therefore should not be entitled to Cenvat Credit. However, the appellate tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner (A)'s decision, stating that the respondent had provided sufficient evidence of receiving the goods and that the show cause notice issued was beyond the limitation period.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (A) in favor of the respondent. The tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit, as the respondent had substantiated the receipt of goods through proper documentation and payment records.