2010 (11) TMI 133 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat credit Non receipt of goods - invoices did not carry consignor s name and address - omission of name of the consignor in the bill may be a circumstance to be taken into account but when there was sufficient independent evidence of receipt of goods the finding recorded cannot be held to be perverse on the basis of contention raised - Cenvat credit allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding wrongful availment of Modvat Credit based on octroi receipts without consignor's information.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the Tribunal's decision on the wrongful availment of Modvat Credit by the assessee. The issue revolved around whether the octroi receipts, without consignor's name and address, were sufficient evidence to prove that the goods covered under them were not fraudulently received by the assessee to claim Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal, along with the adjudicating and appellate authorities, found that the assessee had indeed received the goods, supported by octroi receipts, transportation documents, and invoices. The authorities concluded that there was ample independent evidence of the receipt of goods, despite the absence of consignor details in the invoices.

The revenue alleged that the absence of consignor details in the invoices should have led to the conclusion that the goods were never received by the assessee. However, the court held that while the omission of consignor information could be a relevant factor, the presence of substantial independent evidence, such as entry in registers, goods receipt, transportation documents, and octroi receipts, confirmed the receipt of goods by the assessee. The court emphasized that the mere absence of consignor details in the invoices did not invalidate the evidence of actual receipt of goods by the assessee.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the case. The decision of the Tribunal, supported by the adjudicating and appellate authorities, was upheld, affirming that the assessee had validly received the goods and was entitled to claim Cenvat Credit based on the substantial evidence presented, including octroi receipts and transportation documents.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of considering the totality of evidence in cases involving the receipt of goods and the validity of claiming credits, emphasizing that the absence of certain details in documents should not overshadow the presence of substantial independent evidence supporting the actual receipt of goods by the concerned party.