2014 (5) TMI 529 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - proof of receipt of inputs at premises - proof of existence of premises - Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant holding that he is not entitled to Cenvat Credit on the inputs - Held that - Sale of building is one aspect, but the other question, which is important and relevant, is whether or not the appellant had continued to operate or do business from the said premises during the period in question. The invoices, etc., have to be examined along with the other material and evidence. If the appellant had continued to operate from the premises in question, then a different outcome/result may be possible. It is possible that the appellant had continued to operate from the premises in question for some more time before completely surrendering the possession or stopping the business - M/s. Shree Ganesh industries is a sole proprietorship - Matter remitted back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:

1. Entitlement to Cenvat Credit on inputs by the appellant.

Analysis:

The case involved the appellant, a sole proprietor concern registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944, engaged in manufacturing various products. The appellant's premises were inspected, leading to the disallowance of Cenvat credit on inputs and imposition of penalties. The appellant contended that they had purchased inputs on which excise duty was paid, manufactured finished products, and sold them, all involving payment of central excise duty on inputs. The appellant argued that despite selling the property at one premises, they continued business operations there until a certain date, supported by documents like Goods Receipts and invoices. The Tribunal's order did not adequately address these contentions, prompting the High Court to remit the case for a fresh decision. The High Court emphasized the need to examine whether the appellant continued operations at the premises in question during the relevant period, indicating a possible different outcome based on evidence and material presented.

The High Court highlighted the importance of scrutinizing invoices, evidence, and the appellant's business activities at the premises to determine the legitimacy of claiming Cenvat credit on inputs. The Court also raised the issue of imposing a separate penalty on the appellant as a sole proprietorship entity. Ultimately, the High Court answered the substantial question of law in favor of the appellant, directing the Tribunal to reevaluate the case based on the evidence and documents provided by the appellant. The Court clarified that its decision did not delve into the merits beyond the issues addressed, and the appellant's previous deposit related to the case would be subject to the Tribunal's final order. No additional deposit was required, and a future hearing date was set for further proceedings before the Tribunal.