2014 (12) TMI 1125 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - Bogus invoices - respondent has received the invoices but has not received the inputs physically - evidence with the department is that the statements of the transporters wherein they said that the vehicle Nos. shown in the invoices is wrong and confirmed that the vehicle had not transported the goods to the respondent s factory - Held that - Mode of transport of inputs into the factory of the main respondent has been explained but the same has been controverted by the Revenue. Further all the payments of inputs procured by the respondent have been made through banking channel. I also find that there is no shortage or excess inputs are found in their factory during the investigation. Moreover the inputs have been used for the manufacture of final product. The main respondent has filed RT-12 returns regularly and the same has been accepted by the department. In these circumstances relying on the decision in the case of Neepaz Steels Ltd. (2008 (7) TMI 410 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) wherein the Hon ble High Court held that when findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) clearly established that the RT-12 returns have been assessed finally by the Range Officer which contains all the documents including the invoices under dispute on the basis of which the Modvat credit has been availed and utilized and that payments for the purchase of inputs have been made through cheque/demand draft. In these circumstances it cannot be alleged that the goods have not been received in the factory of the respondent. Therefore following the decision of the Hon ble P&H High Court in the case of Neepaz Steels Ltd. (supra) I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Allegation of non-receipt of goods by the main respondent, denial of input credit, penalties imposed on respondents, appeal against adjudication order.

Analysis:

1. Allegation of Non-Receipt of Goods:
The case revolved around the allegation that the main respondent did not physically receive certain inputs mentioned in the invoices. The department based its case on statements from transporters claiming that the goods were not transported to the respondent's factory. However, the respondent argued that the goods were indeed received and used in manufacturing final products, which were cleared after payment of duty.

2. Denial of Input Credit and Penalties:
The department denied input credit to the main respondent and imposed penalties on all respondents due to the alleged non-receipt of goods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and penalties, leading to an appeal by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the adjudication order.

3. Arguments and Submissions:
During the hearing, the learned AR representing the Revenue contended that the onus to prove receipt of goods was on the respondents. He highlighted the lack of records maintained by the main respondent regarding vehicle numbers, quantity, and mode of transport at the time of goods receipt. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the goods were received, used in manufacturing, and proper records were maintained. The counsel emphasized that payments were made through banking channels, and no discrepancies were found in the factory.

4. Decision and Rationale:
After considering the submissions and records, the tribunal found in favor of the respondents. The tribunal noted that payments were made through legitimate channels, no shortages or excess inputs were found, and the goods were used in manufacturing final products. Relying on a precedent from the Hon'ble High Court, the tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The tribunal emphasized the importance of finalized assessments and proper utilization of Modvat credit as key factors in determining the receipt of goods.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the respondents, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation, payment records, and utilization of inputs in manufacturing processes. The decision highlighted the significance of following established legal principles and precedents in resolving disputes related to the receipt of goods and availing input credit.