2011 (8) TMI 535 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Credit availed on the basis of fake and fictitious invoices - Tribunal referred decision in the case of M/s. Bhagwati Silk Mills & Ors (2011 -TMI - 203593 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) has taken into consideration all the pleas raised by the appellants therein and have expressed opinion and has remanded the matter to original adjudicating authority to decide the matters afresh, after taking into consideration the instructions issued by the CBE&C and in the light of the observations made in the said order - Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Denial of modvat credit based on fake and fictitious invoices; Verification of invoices by original adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in the present appeal was the denial of modvat credit to the appellants on the basis of allegedly fake and fictitious invoices. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the case of M/s. Bhagwati Silk Mills & Ors, where the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper consideration of all pleas raised by the appellants and compliance with instructions from the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBE&C).

2. The consultant for the appellants argued that the original adjudicating authority had not adequately verified the invoices, as the names of the suppliers on the invoices were mentioned in alert Circulars issued by the department. Additionally, the consultant highlighted that the necessary documents to support their case were not provided to the appellants for a proper defense.

3. In light of the above arguments, the presiding judge set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority. The purpose of the remand was for the verification of the appellants' claim regarding the authenticity of the invoices issued by the suppliers, especially concerning the suppliers' names being present in the alert Circulars issued by the department. The judge also directed the original adjudicating authority to provide the relied-upon documents to the appellants for a fair opportunity to defend their case.

4. The judge concluded by stating that the appellants must be given a proper chance to present their defense. Consequently, the stay petition and the appeal were disposed of based on the terms outlined in the judgment. The decision was dictated and pronounced in the court, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and thorough verification in matters of tax credit disputes.