2012 (11) TMI 562 - HC - Central Excise

Demand of duty alleged that Credit had been availed on the basis of invoices issued by the 1st and 2nd stage dealers and not on the basis of commercial invoices issued by M/s. Darmin Steel Suppliers under whose delivery challan and commercial invoices, the payments were made - Held that - Even though the Rules had undergone modifications, the principles underlying availment of Cenvat credit remained the same - there was no dispute that the appellant before it did purchase the goods and there was absolutely no evidence to show that even one transaction out of several was not genuine and the goods had not been received but only the bills had been raised - demand set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Dispute over central excise duty, Cenvat credit, interest, and penalty.
3. Tribunal's decision based on invoices and Circular No. 218/52/96-CX.
4. Lack of evidence on non-receipt of goods and genuineness of transactions.
5. Tribunal's findings upheld by the High Court.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to Tax Appeal No. 1332 of 2011, where the revenue challenged an order under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The dispute involved the demand for central excise duty, Cenvat credit, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 58,24,986/- allegedly wrongly availed and utilized by the assessee. The appellate authority had initially dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, leading to further appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Cenvat credit had been availed based on invoices from 1st and 2nd stage dealers, not directly from the supplier mentioned in the commercial invoices. The Tribunal referenced Circular No. 218/52/96-CX, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation for credit availment. Despite modifications in the rules, the Tribunal highlighted the consistent principles governing Cenvat credit. Notably, there was no evidence suggesting non-receipt of goods or the lack of genuineness in transactions, as all invoices indicated the appellant as the consignee.

Considering the factual findings and the absence of substantial legal questions, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and summarily dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, in Tax Appeal No. 1358 of 2011, which presented similar facts, the High Court dismissed the appeal on identical grounds, affirming the Tribunal's ruling. The judgment underscores the significance of proper documentation and adherence to regulatory guidelines in matters concerning Cenvat credit and central excise duty disputes.