2013 (9) TMI 501 - AT - Central Excise

Issuance of cenvatable invoices to the appellant a second stage dealer without supplying any goods There was merely paper transactions - Persons who were said to be supplier of the goods themselves admitted that they had not supplied any goods to the first stage dealer as aforesaid for delivery thereof to the appellant second stage dealer Held that - Oral statement recorded as stated aforesaid in the course of judicial proceedings u/s 14 of the Act being a valuable piece of evidence that remained un-refuted - Appellant failed to demolish or disturb any of the imputations without leading any cogent evidence to contradict allegations of Revenue - Appellant s plea that its name did not find place in statements recorded as aforesaid is of no significance when the supplier of goods denied supply of goods to it - The appellant was beneficiary of the fraud perpetuated against Revenue and fraud vitiating solemn act brings the appellant to penal consequence of law Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty on the appellant for involvement in paper transactions without actual delivery of goods.
- Allegations of fraudulent issuance of Cenvatable invoices leading to revenue loss.
- Defense claiming lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the charges.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the imposition of a penalty on the appellant due to their involvement in paper transactions without the actual supply of goods. The investigation revealed that the appellant, a second stage dealer, received invoices from first stage dealers without any physical delivery of goods. This led to a loss of revenue, and a penalty of Rs. 7,90,637/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The transactions were found to be aimed at passing on Cenvat credit without the transfer of actual goods, as confirmed by statements from individuals involved in the process.

2. The defense argued that the appellant was not directly linked to the fraudulent activities as the goods were allegedly delivered to the first stage dealers, who were connected entities. However, the appellate authority upheld the adjudication, emphasizing the fraudulent nature of the transactions where Cenvatable invoices were issued without actual delivery of goods. The appellant's receipt of paper credits for passing on to buyers without physical goods transfer was deemed as an attempt to evade excise duty, thus justifying the penalty imposed.

3. The judgment highlights the importance of evidence in establishing fraudulent practices. Despite the lack of direct mention of the appellant in certain statements, the overall scheme of issuing invoices without actual goods supply was considered a deliberate attempt to defraud the revenue system. The failure of the appellant to provide substantial evidence to counter the allegations led to the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the penalty, as the appellant was seen as a beneficiary of the fraudulent activities.

In conclusion, the judgment upholds the penalty imposed on the appellant for their involvement in paper transactions aimed at passing on Cenvat credit without the actual delivery of goods. The lack of concrete evidence linking the appellant directly to the fraudulent activities did not absolve them from the consequences of benefiting from the scheme designed to defraud the revenue system. The decision emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in commercial transactions to prevent revenue losses due to fraudulent practices.