2015 (10) TMI 2539 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit on input - demand of duty with interest - imposition of penalty - pig iron - registration certificate of the dealer has been cancelled on 19.02.2008 with retrospective effect - dealer found to be non existent - Held that - Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to the appellant on the basis of deficient investigation. No investigation was conducted at the end of the appellant to ascertain they have received the goods or not. Revenue has not made any investigation at the end of the manufacturer supplier of the goods. No investigation was conducted at the transporter of the goods or at the premises of the appellant to reveal the truth. No cross examination of the registered dealer was granted to the appellant to reveal the truth. CENVAT credit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand, interest, and penalty due to denial of Cenvat Credit on input procurement.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against an order demanding duty, interest, and penalty due to the denial of Cenvat Credit on inputs procured. The appellant obtained pig iron from a registered dealer and other goods from a manufacturer under duty paid invoices. An investigation alleged the registered dealer was bogus as their registration was canceled retrospectively. A show cause notice was issued to deny Cenvat Credit based on these invoices.

2. The appellant contended that they received and used the goods in manufacturing, despite no investigation at their premises or the manufacturer's end. The denial of Cenvat Credit solely due to the registered dealer's non-existence was challenged. The appellant argued they paid through a valid cheque and utilized the goods in their final product, emphasizing the lack of investigation at crucial points.

3. The appellate authority noted that the Department aimed to deny Cenvat Credit based on the non-existence of the registered dealer, without questioning whether the appellant received the goods. No investigations were conducted at various stages to verify the receipt of goods or the validity of the transactions. The absence of cross-examination of the registered dealer further weakened the case for denying Cenvat Credit.

4. Consequently, the appellate authority set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and any consequential relief. The decision highlighted the importance of thorough investigations and proper grounds for denying Cenvat Credit, emphasizing the need for evidence and due process before penalizing taxpayers.