2013 (5) TMI 486 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of credit/interest/penalty - Inflation of production of Scrap by issuing bogus invoices Revue appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the cenvat credit demand of Rs. 87,106/- Held that - There is no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order which is based upon the Tribunal vide judgment reported in 2009 (4) TMI 750 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI as the same was challenged by the department before the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, matter still pending and this order has not been stayed. Appellant appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) s order upholding the cenvat credit of Rs. 20,409/- and equal Penalty Held that - On records wherein it has been stated that the factory was not in operation since May 2000 and neither any finished goods nor any scrap had been sold since May 2000. From this statement it is clear that no material could have been received from appellants. Thus, no infirmity in the Thus the appeals filed by appellant as well as by the department against the impugned order are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over cenvat credit on scrap received from registered dealer.
2. Allegations of inflated production and issuance of bogus invoices.
3. Confirmation of cenvat credit demand and penalties imposed.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the cenvat credit claimed by M/s. Triveni Casting Pvt. Ltd., Parwanoo, for scrap received from their registered dealer unit at Mandi Govindgarh. The Department alleged that the scrap suppliers had inflated production and issued bogus invoices, leading to the passing on of cenvat credit. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner confirmed a cenvat credit demand of Rs. 1,07,505 against M/s. Triveni Casting Pvt. Ltd., Parwanoo, and imposed penalties on both the Mandi Govindgarh and Parwanoo units.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside a portion of the demand but upheld a part of it. The appeal by M/s. Triveni Casting Pvt. Ltd. challenged the upheld demand of Rs. 20,409 and the corresponding penalty, while the Department appealed the setting aside of the demand of Rs. 87,106. The appellant argued that the order setting aside the larger demand was correct based on a previous Tribunal order that had not been stayed or set aside by the High Court.

3. The Department contended that the Tribunal's order was still under challenge, and the statement of a partner of one of the scrap suppliers supported the upheld demand of Rs. 20,409. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and examining the records, found no issue with the order setting aside the demand of Rs. 87,106. However, regarding the demand of Rs. 20,409, the statement from the supplier's partner indicated that no material had been supplied since 2000, leading to the dismissal of appeals by both M/s. Triveni Casting Pvt. Ltd. and the Department.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on the cenvat credit demands and penalties, based on the evidence and submissions presented during the proceedings.