2011 (7) TMI 113 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Inputs which have not been proved to be received in the manufacturing unit - Contravention to the erstwhile Rule 57G(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have come to a clear finding of fact that the assessee has proved beyond reasonable doubt that they have received the inputs in question and the same were used by them in the manufacture of final product - This is a pure finding of fact which cannot be assailed in an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether Cenvat credit can be allowed on inputs not proved to be received in the manufacturing unit for manufacture of dutiable products in contravention to Rule 57G(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh involved multiple appeals being disposed of through a common judgment due to the identical question of law at hand. The central issue revolved around the allowance of Cenvat credit on inputs that were allegedly not proven to have been received in the manufacturing unit for the production of dutiable products, as per the erstwhile Rule 57G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appeals were admitted based on this question of law, questioning the validity of granting Cenvat credit under these circumstances.

The Court scrutinized the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which both concluded that the assessee had indeed received the inputs in question and utilized them in the manufacturing process of the final product. The Tribunal upheld this specific finding, emphasizing that no contradictory evidence was presented to challenge the Commissioner's findings. Notably, the department sought to introduce new material during the appeal stage, which had not been presented before the Assessing Officer or Revenue Authorities earlier. The Court ruled against allowing the department to introduce additional evidence at this juncture, given the procedural history of the case.

Based on the existing record and the factual determinations made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, it was established that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the receipt and utilization of the inputs in the production process. The Court emphasized that this factual determination could not be contested in an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, the Court concluded that no question of law, let alone a substantial one, was present in the appeals, leading to the rejection of the appeals without any costs being imposed. The judgment underscored the significance of factual findings in such matters and the limitations of challenging them in appellate proceedings.