2015 (5) TMI 1026 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit - dealer issued only the paper invoices without corresponding supply of the inputs and in addition, penalty of identical amount stands imposed upon them - pre deposit demand - stay petition - Held that - Admittedly, starting point of the investigations in the present case is at the end of the dealer, M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd. The same evidence, i.e., the statement of the transporters, wrong mentioning of the vehicle nos. and the evidence leading to non-transportation of the inputs were the basis for the Revenue to issue show cause notices to various manufacturers, who have procured the goods from the said dealer, M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd., as detailed in the preceding paragraph. The development in respect of another manufacturer, who had procured the goods from M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd., had been the subject matter of the decision of the Tribunal as also of the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and of the Hon ble Supreme Court. As such, we are of the view that in the present proceedings, which are emanating from the same central source of investigation at M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd. end, no different view can be adopted, at least, at this interim stage of stay.

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit based on alleged fake invoices.
2. Consideration of evidence regarding non-transportation of goods.
3. Applicability of previous judgments on similar issues.
4. Requirement of pre-deposit for appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Cenvat Credit Based on Alleged Fake Invoices:
The appellants were denied Cenvat credit of Rs. 55,91,314/- for the period from 1-5-1997 to 3-2-2000. The denial was based on the assertion that the dealer, M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd., issued only paper invoices without supplying the actual inputs. The appellant contended that they received the inputs, recorded them in their RG-I register, used them in manufacturing final products, and cleared these products on payment of duty. They argued that the Revenue failed to show an alternative source of raw materials, implying that the inputs must have been received.

2. Consideration of Evidence Regarding Non-Transportation of Goods:
The Revenue's investigation revealed that the vehicles mentioned in the invoices belonged to two-wheelers or other non-transport vehicles. Additionally, some transport companies were found non-existent, and some transporters denied transporting the goods. The Tribunal referenced a similar case involving M/s. Shakti Roll Cold Strips Pvt. Ltd., where the demand was dropped by the Commissioner and upheld by the Tribunal and higher courts. The Tribunal noted that payments were made by cheque and the goods were reflected in RT-12 returns, which were assessed by Range officers.

3. Applicability of Previous Judgments on Similar Issues:
The Tribunal highlighted that similar proceedings against other manufacturers who procured inputs from M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd. were concluded in favor of the assessees up to the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the same evidence used against the appellants had been previously discredited. The Tribunal emphasized that these final orders should be followed, especially at the interim stage of stay proceedings.

4. Requirement of Pre-Deposit for Appeal:
There was a difference of opinion between the Members (Judicial and Technical) on whether the requirement of pre-deposit should be waived unconditionally. The Member (Judicial) argued for an unconditional waiver based on the precedent set by the Shakti Roll Cold Strips case, while the Member (Technical) insisted on a partial pre-deposit due to the substantial evidence against the appellants. The third Member (Technical) sided with the Member (Judicial), noting that the evidences were similar to those in the Shakti Roll Cold Strips case, where the demand was not sustained. Consequently, the stay petition was allowed unconditionally.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal decided in favor of the appellants, allowing the stay petition unconditionally. The decision was influenced by previous judgments where similar evidence was deemed insufficient to deny Cenvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in judicial decisions, particularly when higher courts have ruled on analogous matters.

← Previous Next →