2015 (3) TMI 1159 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit - Non receipt of physical goods - Held that - The only basis to deny the Cenvat credit to the manufacturer buyer is that the vehicles involved were not used in transportation of the goods in question. But Revenue has failed to prove the charge with any corroborative evidence for reliance of the statement of the transporter in question which are analyzed herein above in detail. Therefore the allegation that vehicles were not used in transportation of goods is not sustainable. Consequently the allegation for non transportation of goods is set aside. The Cenvat credit to the manufacturer buyer of the goods in question cannot be denied. Consequently the demand of duty along with interest is not sustainable. Consequently penalties on all the appellants are not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on inputs.
2. Imposition of penalties on the manufacturer buyer and associated parties.
3. Allegations of non-transportation of goods based on vehicle capacity and statements of transporters.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Inputs:
The primary issue was whether the manufacturer buyers physically received the goods, as the department alleged that the transactions were only on paper. The investigation concluded that the transport vehicles did not have the capacity to transport the goods in question, leading to the denial of Cenvat credit.

2. Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties were imposed on the manufacturer buyers, their employees, and the dealers involved (M/s. Jagruti Resin Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shree Sai International) based on the alleged fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit.

3. Allegations of Non-Transportation of Goods:
The department's case was primarily based on the statements of some transporters, which were analyzed in detail:

- Vehicle No. HR/55/0076: The statement of the vehicle owner indicated discrepancies, but no driver statement or proper records were maintained. The tribunal found that the diary submitted after a year was not reliable evidence.

- Vehicle No. HR/55/5287: The vehicle was sold, and no statement from the previous owner was recorded. The tribunal held that the burden of proof was on the Revenue, which was not met.

- Vehicle No. HR/55/H/7767: The owner's statement was inconclusive, and no driver statements were recorded, leading to the dismissal of the allegation.

- Vehicle No. HR/55/8164: The tribunal found assumptions and presumptions without corroborative evidence, dismissing the charge.

- Vehicle No. HR/55/C/5022: The statement of the owner was unreliable, and no corroborative evidence was provided, leading to the dismissal of the allegation.

- Vehicle No. HR/38/F/3612: The statement of the owner was not conclusive, and no driver statements were recorded. The tribunal found the allegation unsustainable.

- Vehicle No. HR/55/7239: The tribunal dismissed the allegation due to the lack of corroborative evidence and reliance on overloading practices.

- Vehicle No. HR/38/8300: The tribunal found the allegation unsustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and unrecorded statements.

- Vehicle No. HR/55/1920: The tribunal found the allegation unsustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and trade practices of issuing multiple invoices.

- Vehicle No. HR/55/5839: The tribunal dismissed the charge due to the lack of corroborative evidence and discrepancies in the vehicle's registered capacity.

- Vehicle No. HR/55/4602: The tribunal found the allegation unsustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and possible registration certificate errors.

- Vehicle No. HR/38/D/3560: The tribunal dismissed the allegation due to the lack of corroborative evidence and unrecorded statements.

- Vehicle No. HR/55/B/5507: The tribunal found the allegation unsustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and unrecorded statements.

- Vehicle No. HR/55/B/6087: The tribunal dismissed the charge due to the lack of corroborative evidence and unrecorded statements.

- Vehicle No. HR/55/B/2454: The tribunal found the allegation unsustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and unrecorded statements.

- Vehicle No. HR/61/4366: The tribunal dismissed the allegation due to the lack of corroborative evidence and unrecorded statements.

- Vehicle No. HR/38/D/0548: The tribunal found the allegation unsustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and unrecorded statements.

- Vehicle No. HR/38/5087: The tribunal dismissed the charge due to the lack of corroborative evidence and the consignee's admission of receipt.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the denial of Cenvat credit was based on unsubstantiated allegations without corroborative evidence. Consequently, the demand for duty along with interest and the imposition of penalties were not sustainable. The appeals of the appellants were allowed with consequential relief, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.