2015 (1) TMI 73 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Non movement of goods - Statement of truck owner recorded after 3 years - Held that - statement of Shri Bhoop Singh is in the nature of third party statement and is required to be proved by evidence, I find that the said statement was recorded after a gap of around 3 years. It is not only impractical but also impossible for a person to remember as to what happened three years back. Appellants have brought on record all the documentary evidence including the GRs showing that the goods have been transported from the supplier s end to their end. Not only that the appellants have also produced on record evidence in the shape of form VAT-D3 prescribed under the proviso to Rule 56(1)(4) and (5) and Haryana Authority Added Tax Act, 2003 showing the despatch of the goods by M/s. International Metal Corpn. Revenue has also not shown any alternative source of acquisition. - no reason to deny the credit based upon the sole statement of owner of the truck recorded after a period of three years, especially when the appellants have produced sufficient evidence on record to show the movement of the goods. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Cenvat credit denial based on third party statement after a gap of 3 years.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,05,207/- availed by the appellant in 2004. The denial was based on a statement by Shri Bhoop Singh, the owner of the transport company, recorded three years later, stating that he did not transport the goods. The tribunal highlighted that the statement was a third-party statement and needed to be substantiated by evidence. The tribunal emphasized the practicality and reliability of recalling events after such a significant time lapse. The appellant presented documentary evidence, including Goods Receipts (GRs) and Form VAT-D3, demonstrating the transportation of goods from the supplier to their premises. Furthermore, the appellant provided evidence under the Haryana Authority Added Tax Act, 2003, indicating the dispatch of goods by the supplier. Notably, the revenue authorities failed to present an alternative source of acquisition, strengthening the appellant's case.

The tribunal concluded that solely relying on the owner's statement recorded after three years, especially when ample evidence was provided by the appellant to establish the movement of goods, was unjustified. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment underscores the importance of substantial evidence in tax credit disputes and the need for a comprehensive evaluation of all available documentation before denying legitimate claims.