2015 (3) TMI 1138 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit on the input received denied - Held that - As gone through the invoices, in the invoices manufacturer is shown as M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt Ltd. and the product shown as copper wire, this creates doubt on the genuineness of the manufacturer supplier and also creates doubt that goods have not suffered duty. Goods which they have received in the factory are not duty paid goods. Therefore, the case relied upon the by the ld. Counsel are not relevant to the facts of this case. Moreover, the appellant although received the goods under cover of the invoices issued by the first stage dealer but these goods are not duty paid goods as description of goods do not match. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on the strength of the invoices issued by the first stage dealer. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat credit on input received by the appellant

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of copper products, was denied Cenvat credit on inputs received due to discrepancies in the invoices. The invoices indicated the manufacturer as a different entity, raising doubts about the authenticity of the transaction. The revenue alleged that the appellant received copper wire scrap instead of the specified copper base. Consequently, proceedings were initiated, and penalties were imposed.

The appellant argued that they were bona fide purchasers who received the goods as per statutory records and transportation receipts. They contended that they had rightfully taken the Cenvat credit, citing legal precedents to support their position. However, the revenue opposed this, highlighting that the appellant received copper wire scrap, not the specified goods, and the manufacturer mentioned in the invoices was not a copper wire manufacturer.

Upon review, the tribunal found discrepancies in the invoices, casting doubt on the authenticity of the transaction and whether the goods had incurred duty. The goods received did not match the description in the invoices, indicating they were not duty-paid. As a result, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal as the appellant was deemed ineligible for Cenvat credit based on the questionable invoices issued by the first-stage dealer.