2017 (8) TMI 1310 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - invalid/forged documents - inputs - sponge, iron, pig iron, MS round cutting, MS scrap etc. - Held that - Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, proprietor of M/s. M.K.Steel in his statement dated 02.01.2006 accepted that he has surrendered his registration certificates in the year 2002-03 and he had issued the invoices to the appellant. But the facts remains that the said invoices/documents were not valid document. So, on the invalid/forged documents no cenvat credit can be allowed - credit not allowed. Penalty - Held that - there was no investigation by the department, the appellant might have not paid duty before issuance of show cause notice. Only under the compulsion of the investigation, the appellant was forced to deposit the duty. It was not deposited under bonafide belief or suo moto - penalty justified. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for cenvat credit on inputs purchased from a non-registered first stage dealer. Validity of invoices for availing cenvat credit. Duty payment before show cause notice and penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. Claim for Cenvat Credit:
- The appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS ingots, claimed cenvat credit on inputs purchased from a non-registered first stage dealer, M/s. M.K.Steel. The appellant contended that the invoices from M/s. M.K.Steel were not valid for availing cenvat credit. The appellant argued that the punishment should be imposed on M/s. M.K.Steel and not on them as they made payments through banking channels. However, the department disallowed the cenvat credit based on the invalidity of the documents.

2. Validity of Invoices:
- The proprietor of M/s. M.K.Steel admitted in a statement that he had surrendered his registration certificates and issued invoices to the appellant. Despite this, the tribunal found that the invoices were not valid documents for claiming cenvat credit. The tribunal held that on the basis of invalid or forged documents, cenvat credit cannot be allowed, thus upholding the department's decision to disallow the credit.

3. Duty Payment and Penalty Imposition:
- The appellant had paid the duty before the issuance of the show cause notice. The appellant argued that since duty was paid before the notice, no penalty should be imposed. However, the tribunal noted that the duty payment was made under compulsion due to the department's investigation. It was observed that had there been no investigation, the duty might not have been paid before the notice. As the payment was not made under a bona fide belief or voluntarily, the tribunal found the penalty imposition justifiable.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the impugned order disallowing the cenvat credit and imposing the penalty. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed based on the reasons provided in the order.