2012 (11) TMI 520 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty alleged the supplier of respondent were issuing invoices without supply of materials thus enabling the person purchasing invoice to take fraudulent Cenvat credit - Held that - Goods were not transported and the fact that the transporters were paid in cash does not help the case of the Respondent - goods were not received in the factory of the Respondent, the burden to prove otherwise had shifted to the Respondent and no concrete facts to prove their claim has been put forward - goods were never transported to the factory of the Respondents is established - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged fraudulent Cenvat credit availed by the Respondent based on invoices without actual supply of materials.
2. Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN) confirming the demand and imposing penalty.
3. Appeal filed by the Respondent with the Commissioner (Appeal) setting aside the demand.
4. Appeal by the Revenue challenging the Commissioner (Appeal) order.
5. Examination of legal precedents and facts to determine the validity of the Cenvat credit availed by the Respondent.

The judgment revolves around the case where the Respondents, manufacturers of Non-Alloy Steel Ingots, were accused of availing fraudulent Cenvat credit based on invoices issued without actual supply of materials. Investigations revealed that the suppliers, including M/s. Amit Steel Traders, were involved in issuing invoices for non-existent transactions, allowing fraudulent credit. The Respondents were alleged to have passed on excess credit to units in the duty-paying sector through dummy invoices. The Show Cause Notice demanded recovery of Rs. 223723/- Cenvat credit along with interest and imposed a penalty under Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules.

The adjudication of the SCN confirmed the demand and penalty, leading the Respondent to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeal). The Commissioner (Appeal) referred to a similar case and set aside the demand, prompting the Revenue to appeal the decision. The Revenue argued, citing legal precedents, that the Cenvat credit taken fraudulently should be recovered, emphasizing a case-by-case assessment based on facts.

The judgment analyzed the legal precedents and facts, highlighting the importance of scrutinizing the evidence. It noted the payment discrepancies and lack of concrete evidence supporting the Respondent's claims. The judgment emphasized that the burden to prove receipt of goods shifted to the Respondent, and in the absence of substantial evidence, the claim of goods being used in manufacturing could not be accepted. The judgment concluded that the goods were never transported to the factory, establishing economic offenses based on the preponderance of probability.

Ultimately, the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) was deemed improper and set aside, restoring the demand of duty from the Respondent. However, the judgment allowed the Respondent the option to pay 25% of the penalty amount within 30 days to reduce the penalty, following a legal precedent. The appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue based on the established economic offenses and lack of concrete evidence supporting the Respondent's claims.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal proceedings, evidence evaluation, and decision-making process involved in the case of alleged fraudulent Cenvat credit availed by the Respondent.