2015 (3) TMI 1253 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - certain goods which were actually meant for M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd., sister concern of the respondent - Held that - There is nothing on record to show that M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd. availed of Cenvat credit. There has been no loss to the revenue. The arrangement was, therefore, genuine. Mere change in the name of the consignee in the invoices of M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd. to the respondent makes no difference. The credit ought to be disallowed as the respondent had not produced the octroi receipts, transportation records or any positive evidence that the goods were not received in the respondent s factory. This was a question of fact, the answer to which can neither be said to be absurd or perverse. Credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22-1-2014
- Contention of wrongly availed Cenvat credit by the respondent in respect of certain goods meant for another company
- Internal arrangement between sister concerns regarding the transfer of goods
- Lack of evidence regarding loss to revenue or misuse of credit by the sister concern
- Disallowance of credit due to lack of documentation by the respondent
- Dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of no question of law arising

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, where the appellant contended that the respondent had wrongly availed Cenvat credit for goods meant for another company, M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd. It was established that both companies were engaged in the manufacture of aerated water, and the goods in question were initially ordered by M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd. The Tribunal found that there was an internal arrangement between the sister concerns, allowing the transfer of goods to the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that there was no evidence to suggest that M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd. availed of the credit, and there was no loss to the revenue. This genuine arrangement was upheld, emphasizing that a mere change in the consignee's name did not alter the legitimacy of the transaction.

The appellant had argued that the credit should be disallowed due to the respondent's failure to produce certain documents like octroi receipts and transportation records to prove the receipt of goods in their factory. However, the Tribunal considered this a question of fact, neither absurd nor perverse, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment highlighted that since no legal issue arose from the circumstances presented, the appeal was rejected on its merits. Additionally, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, as the decision was made based on the substantive merits of the case rather than procedural delays.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence in matters concerning tax credits and internal business arrangements. It clarifies that the absence of specific documentation does not necessarily invalidate legitimate transactions, especially when there is no indication of revenue loss or misuse. The decision provides a nuanced analysis of the factual and legal aspects of the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the lack of legal grounds for challenge.