2013 (11) TMI 1226 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit taken on bogus invoices - The invoices issued by M/s Pasondia Steel to M/s Rishav Trading and M/s Bansal Structural were bogus invoices, the further invoices issued by the registered dealer on the basis of M/s Pasondia s invoices would, without any doubt, also be bogus invoices without receipt of any material - The availability of Cenvat credit is linked with the actual receipt of the goods covered under an invoice - Once it is proved that the invoices on the basis of which the credit had been taken, were bogus invoices and under those invoices, no goods have been supplied, the Cenvat credit would not be admissible order set aside Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Cenvat credit availed by the respondent based on invoices from registered dealers.
2. Allegations of bogus invoices issued by suppliers and subsequent impact on Cenvat credit eligibility.
3. Ex-parte decision due to non-appearance of the respondent during the proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the Cenvat credit availed by the respondent, who were manufacturers of control panels. The central issue was the validity of the credit claimed in relation to the procurement of CR sheets from registered dealers, M/s Bansal Structural Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Rishav Trading Company. The jurisdictional officers discovered discrepancies during a visit to the factory premises, leading to an investigation into the authenticity of the invoices provided by these dealers for the procurement of CR sheets.

2. It was revealed that the suppliers, M/s Pasondia Steel Profiles Ltd., from whom the registered dealers claimed to have purchased the CR sheets, were engaged in fraudulent activities. M/s Pasondia was found to be involved in a scheme where they falsely claimed to manufacture CR sheets using HR sheets from Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) and then passed on the Cenvat credit to various dealers through bogus invoices. This raised doubts about the legitimacy of the invoices presented by the registered dealers to the respondent, casting a shadow on the entire chain of credit availed by the respondent.

3. Due to the non-appearance of the respondent during the proceedings, the matter was decided ex-parte. The absence of any representation from the respondent, coupled with returned notices and locked premises, indicated a lack of cooperation or communication from their end. This led to a unilateral decision-making process, where the arguments and evidence presented by the Revenue were considered without counter-arguments from the respondent.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Cenvat credit claimed by the respondent based on the questionable invoices from M/s Bansal Structural and M/s Rishav Trading, which were linked to the fraudulent activities of M/s Pasondia, was not valid. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of actual receipt of goods for claiming Cenvat credit and ruled that the credit based on bogus invoices was inadmissible. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the original order confirming the demand for Cenvat credit along with penalties was reinstated in favor of the Revenue.