2011 (5) TMI 501 - AT - Central Excise

Rebate claims - Manufacture of fabrics - Job work on behalf of the various merchant manufacturers - The Revenue has sought to deny the deemed modvat credit availed by the appellant in respect of the grey fabrics received by them on the ground that no manufacturing process has taken place at the appellant s premises - Held that the goods were processed by the appellants and cleared on payment of duty - The fact that the rebate claim documents filed by client have been found forged, cannot have any reflection on the appellants present case - Hence, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing wrong modvat credit.
2. Denial of modvat credit.
3. Identity of merchant manufacturer.
4. Validity of rebate claims.
5. Refund claim for excess taxes.
6. Non-existent firm of merchant manufacturer.
7. Deemed modvat credit availed.
8. Payment of duty from PLA account.
9. Forged rebate claim documents.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, engaged in fabric manufacture, availed modvat credit for duty paid on grey fabrics and used it for final processed fabrics. The Revenue alleged wrong credit due to non-receipt of grey fabrics from a merchant manufacturer. However, the appellant claimed to have received and processed the goods, clearing them for export.

2. The case involved two rebate claims by a non-existent merchant manufacturer, where the appellant was the actual manufacturer. Investigations revealed the merchant was fictitious, using forged documents. Lower authorities confirmed demand against the appellant, leading to penalties.

3. The appellate authority found the merchant to be fake, with no evidence of actual exports or receipt of grey fabrics by the appellant. The appellant's contention for refund due to sham transactions was dismissed, focusing solely on modvat credit availability.

4. The Tribunal referred to a similar case where the denial of credit was based on the non-existence of the merchant. The onus to prove the merchant's non-existence was on the appellant, supported by statements and records contradicting the Revenue's claims.

5. The Revenue's denial of modvat credit was based on the lack of manufacturing at the appellant's premises. However, the appellant's payment of duty from the PLA account and the reversal of deemed credit supported their claim of receiving and processing the goods.

6. The Tribunal held that the appellant processed and cleared the goods, unaffected by the merchant's forged rebate claims. The lack of confidence in the Revenue's case led to the appeal's allowance, following the precedent set in a similar case.

7. The decision was based on the established facts and circumstances, emphasizing the appellant's compliance with duty payments despite the fraudulent actions of the non-existent merchant. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and disposing of the stay petition accordingly.