2014 (12) TMI 319 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - CENVAT Credit - Paper transactions - Bogus invoices - Held that - Whole transactions were on paper only and if we require the appellant to deposit the entire amount without taking into account the payments made by the group companies, we would be requiring the appellant to deposit an amount which is already collected by the Revenue, because of not receiving the input. When the two group companies deposit the amount, and when the appellant has taken the credit of the duty-paid on such goods, the cycle is completed and the goods have completed the cycle and therefore in reality only an offence has been committed by making paper transactions but it is difficult to find any revenue loss. Nevertheless, as already observed by us, if the inputs are not received, according to statute, the appellant is not entitled to CENVAT credit. The normal assumption is that when inputs are not received and only paper transaction takes place, there would be revenue loss to the Government since input would have gone elsewhere but in this case, it is clearly not so since no inputs have moved from the beginning to the end. However, we cannot waive the requirement of balance amount of CENVAT credit which is yet to be paid by the two other group companies since to that extent inputs have not been received by the appellant who have taken the credit. - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Reconsideration of financial hardship based on fresh material produced before the Hon'ble High Court's observations. Examination of paper transactions and CENVAT credit availed without actual clearance of goods. Assessment of financial position and reserves of the appellant. Determination of requirement for depositing balance amount of CENVAT credit unpaid by other group companies.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal was directed by the Hon'ble High Court to reconsider the financial hardship issue based on new material, specifically the appellant's balance sheet for the year ending 31.3.2014. The Court instructed a fresh assessment of the situation, keeping all points open for consideration.

2. The learned counsel presented a detailed account of the paper transactions undertaken by the appellant, highlighting that no actual clearance of goods or receipt of inputs occurred. The transactions involved multiple invoices and transfers among sister companies, leading to the conclusion that the entire process was on paper only, with no physical movement of goods.

3. The learned AR argued that the two sister units, who wrongly availed CENVAT credit and made deposits, should not impact the appellant's case. However, considering the paper transactions and the fact that the deposits made by the other units were taken into account, the Tribunal found it fair to consider these payments while deciding on the appellant's stay application.

4. Regarding the appellant's financial position, it was revealed that despite incurring a significant loss during the current year, the appellant still maintained substantial reserves and surplus. The appellant's profit brought forward and the lack of substantial erosion in reserves indicated a relatively stable financial standing.

5. After thorough consideration of the submissions and the nature of the paper transactions, the Tribunal acknowledged that while no revenue loss occurred due to the lack of actual movement of goods, the appellant was not entitled to CENVAT credit as per the statute. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the remaining balance of CENVAT credit unpaid by the other group companies within a specified timeline, with the stay against recovery granted upon compliance.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the legal principles and factual circumstances presented before it.