2013 (10) TMI 668 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit non receipt of inputs - Waiver of Pre-deposit - Benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on various iron and steel inputs shown to have been received by them and utilized in the manufacture of final product is in question Held that - Investigation showed that vehicle numbers as reflected in the invoices issued by the dealer were of two-wheeler and as such it was not possible to transport huge iron and steel materials in the said two wheelers - There is also a statement of dealer admitting that only the invoices were issued and no corresponding inputs were delivered Prima Facie the appellant does not have a good case so as to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty the applicant was directed to deposit 50% of the duty Upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Duty confirmation, Penalty imposition, Denial of Cenvat credit, Investigation findings, Pre-deposit of duty and penalty

In the judgment delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, it was noted that a duty of Rs.1,63,651/- was confirmed against the applicant, accompanied by a penalty of the same amount. The confirmation of duty was based on the denial of Cenvat credit for duty paid on iron and steel inputs received and used in the manufacturing process of the final product. The investigation revealed that the inputs were obtained from a registered dealer, M/s. H BR Steel Corpn. Ludhiana. However, a search at the dealer's premises showed no stock, and the vehicle numbers on the invoices indicated two-wheelers, raising doubts about the transportation of significant iron and steel materials on such vehicles. Additionally, the dealer admitted to issuing invoices without delivering the corresponding inputs.

Considering the prima facie findings, it was concluded that the appellant lacked a strong case to waive the pre-deposit condition for duty and penalty. Therefore, the applicant was directed to deposit 50% of the duty within six weeks, failing which the remaining duty and the entire penalty would be due. The judgment scheduled a follow-up for compliance verification on 4.10.2013. The decision was pronounced in an open court by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, highlighting the importance of adhering to the prescribed legal procedures in matters of duty confirmation and penalty imposition based on investigation findings.