2013 (8) TMI 27 - HC - Central Excise

Fictitious purchase - Modvat credit - No manufacturing activity started - Caveat emptor - Held that - Once it is held and established that no manufacturing activity was indulged and undertaken by M/s Kejriwal Enterprises and M/s Priyanka Metals, then the alleged supplies and Modvat credit claim have to be rejected - The maxim caveat emptor is clearly applicable to a case of this nature - It was for the buyer to establish that he had no knowledge about the genuineness or otherwise of the SIL in question - Following decision of Commissioner of Customs versus A.A. Float Textiles (I) P. Ltd. 2009 (2) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allegations of fictitious units and Modvat credit - Reliance on statements of Sunil Kejriwal and K.C. Kejriwal - Cross-examination issues - Availing Modvat credit on wrong invoices - Rejection of Modvat credit claim - Application of caveat emptor principle - Dismissal of appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the tribunal's order alleging it was wrongly recorded that four units were fictitious when only two were, and cross-examination issues regarding statements of Sunil Kejriwal and K.C. Kejriwal. The tribunal had directed the Revenue to provide documents and remanded the matter twice for fresh adjudication. The appellant's submissions were considered, but the tribunal confirmed excise duty and penalty. The Assessing Officer's procedures for cross-examination were detailed, including attempts to contact witnesses.

The show cause notice revealed investigations into fictitious units M/s Geeta Metal Industries and M/s Ajate Metal Industries, and non-receipt of copper bars by M/s Kejriwal Enterprises and M/s Priyanka Metals despite claiming Modvat credit. Statements by Sunil Kejriwal and K.C. Kejriwal supported the allegations. The tribunal upheld the rejection of Modvat credit due to lack of manufacturing activity by the units. The judgment cited Commissioner of Customs v. A.A. Float Textiles emphasizing the buyer's duty to verify genuineness, applying the caveat emptor principle to the case.

Considering the factual findings and tribunal's observations, the High Court found no substantial legal question for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of due diligence in commercial transactions and the buyer's responsibility to verify the authenticity of goods purchased. The dismissal was based on the lack of legal issues raised by the appellant challenging the tribunal's decision regarding the rejection of Modvat credit claims and the application of the caveat emptor principle in the case.