2015 (2) TMI 383 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Vehicle nos mentioned in invoices were found to be not transported vehicles such as motor cycle, scooter, moped, etc. and in some cases, registration of the vehicles were fake as these were not issued jurisdictional transport authority - Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original on the basis that the appellants have made payment for the inputs received from the dealer through accounts payee cheque and used the inputs in the manufacture of the final products - Held that - Following decision of Adhunik Steels Ltd. Vs.CCE, Chandigarh 2009 (7) TMI 1207 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal setting aside demand of duty confirmed by adjudicating authority based on cenvat credit availed on invoices for non-transported vehicles and fake vehicle registrations. Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside Order-in-Original due to payment for inputs received and used in manufacturing. Application of precedent from Adhunik Steels Ltd. case regarding burden of proof on assessee for receiving and using duty paid inputs.

Analysis:
The appeal in question challenges the Order-in-Appeal that reversed the demand of duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The respondents had availed cenvat credit based on invoices for vehicles that were not actually transported vehicles like motor cycles, scooters, etc., with some having fake registrations. The allegation was that the dealers did not supply the material to the respondents. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set it aside on the grounds that the appellants had made payment for the inputs received from the dealer through accounts payee cheque and utilized them in the manufacture of final products.

In a similar case involving Adhunik Steels Ltd., the Tribunal addressed the issue of burden of proof on the assessee regarding the receipt and use of duty paid inputs. The Tribunal emphasized that once it is established that the vehicles mentioned in the invoices were incapable of transporting the goods, the onus shifts to the assessee to prove the receipt and utilization of the goods in manufacturing excisable products. The Tribunal held that the initial burden of proving non-receipt of goods by the appellant was discharged by the Revenue, thereby placing the onus on the appellant to demonstrate the receipt and use of duty paid goods in the factory.

Given the identical nature of the issue at hand, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in light of the precedent set in the Adhunik Steels Ltd. case. The decision underscores the importance of the assessee proving the receipt and utilization of duty paid inputs when faced with discrepancies in vehicle details and allegations of non-supply by dealers. The burden of proof shifts to the assessee once the Revenue establishes inconsistencies in the transportation and receipt of goods as per the invoices.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the significance of proper documentation and evidence to substantiate the receipt and use of inputs in manufacturing processes, especially in cases where discrepancies in vehicle details and supplier actions are raised. The decision emphasizes the need for the assessee to meet the burden of proof regarding the utilization of duty paid goods to avoid adverse findings and demands for unpaid duties.