2011 (6) TMI 598 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - on the strength of invoices issued by a company which had indulged in sale of PVC component without undertaking any manufacturing activity and without physically removing the goods and had issued only invoices to pass on the Cenvat credit Held that - there is no dispute as regards the evidence submitted by the respondent before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). these are only bald allegations in the grounds of appeal and no contrary evidence is produced. There is no contrary evidence produced to the Commissioner(Appeals). Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit based on improper availment by the respondent assessee.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-In-Original No. 30/CE/DC/-LDH-I/2008, dated 18.08.08, concerning the respondent's availing of Cenvat credit based on invoices issued by Kashish Import Pvt. Ltd. It was discovered during an investigation that Kashish Products Impex Pvt. Ltd. engaged in selling PVC components without any manufacturing activity, leading to a Show-Cause Notice issued to the respondent for improper Cenvat credit availment. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand due to Kashish Products Impex Pvt. Ltd.'s activities. However, the respondent provided evidence of goods receipt in their factory premises before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal by the Revenue.

The Revenue contended that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the evidence and cited a Tribunal judgment regarding physical transportation of goods from Kashish Products Impex Pvt. Ltd. to the respondent's factory. The Revenue argued that since goods were not physically transported, the claim of receipt by the respondent was unsustainable. Additionally, it was claimed that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not establish a nexus between the parties despite considering various documents and receipts submitted by the respondent.

The respondent's counsel supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and highlighted the evidence submitted before the adjudicating authority, which was allegedly not considered. Upon review, the issue at hand was determined to be the denial of Cenvat credit to the respondent. The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the evidence submitted by the respondent before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and noted that the Commissioner had appreciated the evidence presented. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's decision was correct, as there were no contrary pieces of evidence presented to challenge the factual findings. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.