2015 (2) TMI 1012 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - reduction on account of Cenvat credit attributable to inputs - Held that - Main raw material for manufacturing the fabric is yarn and as per the Show Cause Notice and the order impugned, it has been alleged that the respondent has purchased the inputs i.e. yarn to the tune of ₹ 77,27,761/- but it is not coming out from the investigation from where this figure they have got when the respondent has made a statement that he has destroyed the purchase invoices. The investigation was not conducted to verify the invoices issued by the suppliers and it is alleged that the invoices issued by the dealers are not Cenvatable invoice. It is a mere presumption that the invoices issued by the suppliers are not Cenvatable but no verification is done in this case at the suppliers end during the course of investigation. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be alleged that the invoices issued by the suppliers are not cenvatable, in the absence of any concrete evidence brought on record by the Revenue during the course of investigation that the invoices issued by the suppliers are not cenvatable. In the impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered all the aspects and thereafter he has arrived at a decision that for the purchase of yarn to the tune of ₹ 77,27,761/- the respondent is entitled for Cenvat Credit on these inputs which works out to ₹ 5,48,401/-. In these circumstances, when the investigation is weak therefore I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Appeal against order quantifying duty liability with reduction on account of Cenvat Credit.
2. Contention regarding availability of Cenvat credit due to lack of evidence.
3. Respondent's absence during proceedings leading to final disposal of appeal.
4. Allegations regarding purchase of inputs and lack of verification during investigation.
5. Decision upholding Commissioner (Appeals) order due to weak investigation.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the duty liability of the Respondent. The Commissioner had allowed a reduction of &8377; 5,48,401 on account of Cenvat Credit related to the inputs procured by the Respondent for their manufacturing activity during the impugned period.

2. The Revenue's argument was based on the contention that the Respondent did not provide any evidence to support their claim for Cenvat credit. It was highlighted that as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Cenvat credit cannot be availed without proper evidence. Therefore, the Revenue sought denial of the reduction attributed to Cenvat credit.

3. Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the Respondent did not appear during the proceedings, nor requested an adjournment. Due to the repeated absence of the Respondent, the appeal was taken up for final disposal by the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal reviewed the records and noted that the main raw material for manufacturing fabric was yarn. It was alleged that the Respondent had purchased yarn worth &8377; 77,27,761, but the investigation did not verify the source of this figure as the Respondent claimed to have destroyed the purchase invoices. The investigation also did not validate whether the invoices issued by suppliers were Cenvatable. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of concrete evidence from the Revenue to support the claim that the invoices were not Cenvatable. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow Cenvat Credit on the inputs amounting to &8377; 5,48,401, citing the weak investigation as a key factor.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the insufficiency of evidence provided during the investigation. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the reduction granted on account of Cenvat Credit to the Respondent.

← Previous Next →