2014 (6) TMI 617 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of dues - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Revenue contends that credit availed without receiving inputs - Held that - authorized signatory M/s. Dhuleva Trading Corporation admitted that the goods were supplied and only proprietor of M/s. Nakoda Trading Coprn. has denied the supply of the inputs. The applicants availed credit in respect of the input received from M/s Nakoda Trading Corpn. to the extent of approximately Rs. 60 lakhs. In these circumstances the offer made by the applicant is sufficient for hearing of the appeal - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty
- Denial of credit of duty paid on imported goods
- Allegations of goods being sold at a different location than claimed
- Discrepancies in statements regarding receipt of materials in the factory
- Reliance on evidence from transporters and statements of involved parties
- Lack of cross-examination opportunity for a key witness
- Discrepancies in adjudicating authority's findings
- Requirement of deposit amount for appeal hearing

Analysis:
The judgment involves multiple issues related to the waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty. The primary issue revolves around the denial of credit of duty paid on imported goods by M/s Indian Smelting & Refining Co. Ltd. The demand was confirmed based on the allegation that the imported goods were sold at a different location than claimed, leading to penalties being imposed. The Revenue relied on evidence from transporters and statements of involved parties to support their case.

Another significant issue arises from discrepancies in statements regarding the receipt of materials in the factory. While the manufacturing unit claimed to have received the inputs and availed credit, there were conflicting statements from different parties involved, particularly regarding the supply of materials to the manufacturing unit. The lack of cross-examination opportunity for a key witness, Shri Ugamraj Jain, raised concerns about the violation of principles of natural justice.

Furthermore, there were discrepancies in the adjudicating authority's findings, with contradictory conclusions regarding the receipt of materials in the factory. The Revenue heavily relied on statements to argue that the goods were not received in the manufacturing unit as claimed. The applicant, M/s Indian Smelting & Refining Co. Ltd., offered to deposit a specific amount to proceed with the appeal hearing, which was deemed sufficient by the tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of denial of credit, discrepancies in statements, reliance on evidence, lack of cross-examination opportunity, and the requirement of a deposit amount for the appeal hearing. The tribunal directed the applicant to deposit a specified amount within a given timeframe for the waiver of the remaining pre-deposit amount, interest, and penalties, with recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency.