2012 (6) TMI 638 - AT - Central Excise

Paper transaction to claim Cenvat credit - Held that - Mode of transportation claimed by the appellants was false as the goods in question claimed to have been transported and the quantities transported shows that the same ranges from 7.180 M.T. to 20.190 M.T as carrying such a huge quantity by motor cycle or scooter is inconceivable - as no offender be allowed to retain undue benefit made at the cost of public first appellate order is reversed and the adjudication order is restored and all the five appeals are allowed in favour of Revenue - in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of appellants based on receipt of goods at the factory.
2. Allegations of fraud against Revenue regarding transportation of goods.
3. Applicability of the principle that fraud is against justice.
4. Examination of transportation mode claimed by the appellants.
5. Consideration of undue benefit retained by the appellants at the cost of public.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a set of appeals consequent to a main appeal remanded by the Tribunal. The Counsel argued that if the receipt of goods at the factory is proven, the liability of the appellants would be negated, suggesting a remand of these appeals as well. However, the presence of fraud against Revenue complicated the matter.

2. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the transportation of heavy metal scrap, with the goods claimed to be transported by vehicles like motor cycles and scooters. The quantities involved were significantly high, making it implausible for such vehicles to carry them, indicating a potential paper transaction for Cenvat credit.

3. The judgment emphasized that fraud is fundamentally incompatible with justice, citing a precedent to support this stance. It was deemed unacceptable for the appellants to benefit unduly at the expense of Revenue. The mode of transportation claimed was found to be false, leading to a reversal of the first appellate order in favor of Revenue.

4. The appellate authority's failure to consider the basic legal principle of not allowing offenders to retain undue benefits acquired at the public's cost was highlighted. Consequently, the adjudication order was reinstated, and all five appeals were decided in favor of Revenue.

5. The order concluded by instructing the concerned authority to promptly inform the jurisdictional Commissioner about the decision to safeguard Revenue's interests in the ongoing matter remanded by the Tribunal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in an open court session.