2015 (1) TMI 407 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - bogus invoice - large time gap between issue of invoices and supply of goods - This held to be bogus transaction - Held that - Cenvat credit, in question, has been taken by the appellant on the basis of seven invoices issued by M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises, Mandi Gobindgarh to the appellant during November 2004 and December 2004. All these invoices mention name of the manufacturer from whom the goods supplied to the appellant had been procured as M/s JAS Casting Pvt. Ltd. and also details of the invoices issued by M/s JAS Casting to M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises. From the details of the invoices issued by M/s JAS Casting, Rajpura to M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises it is clear in each case there is big time gap of more than two weeks between the date on which the invoices had been issued by M/s JAS Casting to M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises and the date on which the invoices had been issued by M/s Sidh Balak to the appellant. When the appellant had no office or godown, it is difficult to believe as to how and where the goods had been stored. In view of this, the burden of proof that the goods had actually been received by the appellant company would shift to them. The appellant company in this regard has not produced any evidence. In view of this, I hold that the transactions of the appellant company with M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises are bogus and as such no goods had been received by them and hence the Cenvat credit has been rightly denied. Therefore, in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Cenvat credit taken by the appellant based on invoices from M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises.
2. Allegations of bogus transactions between M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises and M/s JAS Casting Pvt. Ltd.
3. Burden of proof on the appellant regarding receipt of goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of rounds and squares from MS Ingots, took Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,88,289 in November 2005 based on seven invoices from M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises. The Department suspected these transactions as bogus due to discrepancies in the details provided by M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises and lack of physical premises. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the Cenvat credit demand, along with interest and penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant argued that the goods were received from M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises, who sourced them from M/s JAS Casting Pvt. Ltd., Rajpura. They contended that the Department's case was based on unrelated investigations and lacked direct evidence against the transactions in question. The appellant emphasized the lack of inquiry into the specific transactions and cited a Tribunal judgment highlighting the importance of thorough investigations before drawing conclusions.

3. The Department defended its findings, pointing to the discrepancies in the statements of Shri Sachin, the proprietor of M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises, regarding the lack of physical premises and changing contact details. They highlighted the time gap between the invoices issued by M/s JAS Casting and M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises, raising doubts about the actual supply of goods. The Department argued that the burden of proof shifted to the appellant due to these discrepancies, and since no evidence was produced to substantiate the receipt of goods, the denial of Cenvat credit was justified.

In conclusion, the tribunal found that the transactions between the appellant and M/s Sidh Balak Enterprises were deemed bogus due to inconsistencies and lack of evidence regarding the actual receipt of goods. The burden of proof was not met by the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the denial of Cenvat credit.