2014 (6) TMI 552 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - procurement of fabric from dealer - fraudulent activity - whether the appellant is to be saddled with demand of the Cenvat Credit availed by them on the invoices which were issued by the processors while availing Cenvat Credit on the invoices which were issued by fabric manufactures who were non-existing during the relevant period - Held that - processors had availed Cenvat Credit on the invoices of fabric manufacturers who were non-existing and passed on the same to the appellant. At the outset, we find that there is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant had filed monthly returns for the period May 2004 to February 2005 with the authorities. The contentions of the Ld. Departmental Representative that the appellant was aware that the fabric manufacturers were non-existence or fake is not borne out from any of the records available before us in as much as, there is no statement recorded of the proprietor of the appellant or any employee. It is also seen from the impugned order that the appellant herein had sought cross examination of the persons who had signed the invoices issued by the fabric manufacturer to these six processors and a claim was made that the said manufacturers are still in existence. This vital submission was not followed up by the lower authorities, in order to establish that the appellant had knowledge of non-existence of these six processors - Demand is also barred by limitation. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Availment of ineligible Cenvat Credit on duty paid inputs from processors.
2. Denial of Cenvat Credit based on authenticity of invoices from fabric manufacturers.
3. Remand for further verification of Cenvat Credit availed from M/s. Rainbow Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd.
4. Limitation period for demanding reversal of Cenvat Credit from other processors.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Availment of ineligible Cenvat Credit
The appellant availed Cenvat Credit on inputs procured from processors who had already availed Cenvat Credit on the same invoices. The adjudicating authority confirmed demands, interest, and imposed penalties. The appellant argued that the issue could be divided into two parts: (i) Cenvat Credit from M/s. Rainbow Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., and (ii) Cenvat Credit from other processors. The appellant contested the denial of credit from M/s. Rainbow Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., presenting evidence of the company's existence and jurisdiction. Regarding other processors, the appellant relied on a High Court judgment and argued that the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue 2: Denial of Cenvat Credit based on authenticity
The Departmental Representative claimed that the appellant was aware of the non-existence of fabric manufacturers from whom the processors availed Cenvat Credit. The appellant disputed this, citing lack of evidence or recorded statements proving their awareness. The appellant sought cross-examination of persons related to the invoices, but this was not pursued by the authorities. The judgment highlighted the absence of proof of the appellant's knowledge of the fabric manufacturers' non-existence, supporting the appellant's claim that the demand was time-barred.

Issue 3: Remand for further verification
Regarding Cenvat Credit from M/s. Rainbow Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found discrepancies in the range jurisdiction and remanded the matter for reevaluation. The Tribunal emphasized the need for verification from the correct range authority to determine the authenticity of documents for availing Cenvat Credit.

Issue 4: Limitation period for demanding reversal
The Tribunal referenced a High Court judgment to support the appellant's argument that the demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit from other processors was barred by limitation. The judgment emphasized that in the absence of evidence proving the appellant's involvement in any fraud, the larger period of limitation could not be applied.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the matter concerning Cenvat Credit from M/s. Rainbow Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. for further verification and ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the limitation period for demanding reversal of Cenvat Credit from other processors. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, considering the legal precedents and lack of evidence supporting the revenue's claims.

← Previous Next →