2015 (4) TMI 960 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat Credit - Charges of availing Cenvat credit merely on the basis of invoices without physical receiving any material - Denial on the basis of statement of supplier - Held that - From the statement of supplier, it is not coming out that during the period November, 2004 to April, 2005, the manufacturer supplier was not manufacturing the goods. The statement of supplier is vague. Moreover, the appellant was having supporting evidence in the form of check post endorsement, proof of sales tax payment and towards the goods, payment was made through account payee cheque. I also find that at the time of visit of the factory of the appellant, nothing incriminating have been found. If same would have been found, it would have been brought on record, as there is nothing on record, the question arises from where the goods were procured from the appellant for manufacturing excisable goods. When Revenue has alleged that they have not received the goods then duty cast on the revenue to brought on record from where the goods were procured. The allegation leveled against the appellant are only on the basis of statement of supplier. No cross examination of the supplier was afforded to the appellant for fair trial. As investigation is deficient and no corroborative evidence have been produced by the Revenue on record, the same is the observation of this Tribunal, in the case of Rajan Engineering Works 2011 (7) TMI 626 - CESTAT, DELHI ,therefore, I hold that appellant has rightly availed the Cenvat credit on the inputs on the strength of the invoices issued by KPIL. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to denial of Cenvat credit, imposition of penalty, sufficiency of evidence, cross-examination rights.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to denial of Cenvat credit: The appellant appealed against the order denying Cenvat credit, interest, and imposing a penalty. The case involved goods procured from a supplier, and the denial was based on the supplier's statement that they did not manufacture or supply the goods to the appellant. The appellant argued that they physically received the goods, supported by evidence of payment through cheques, sales tax payment, and check post endorsements on documents. The appellant contended that the denial of Cenvat credit was unjustified, emphasizing that they had received the goods and the supplier's statement was incorrect. Reference was made to a similar case where the Tribunal ruled in favor of the manufacturer buyer, highlighting the importance of a fair trial and cross-examination rights.

2. Imposition of penalty: The adjudication process confirmed the demand to deny Cenvat credit, along with interest and a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal. The appellant argued that the evidence presented, such as check post endorsements and payment records, proved the receipt of goods, making the penalty imposition unwarranted. The appellant stressed the lack of incriminating evidence found during the visit to their factory, questioning the basis for the penalty.

3. Sufficiency of evidence: The core allegation against the appellant was their alleged failure to physically receive the goods but only the invoices. The supplier's statement formed the basis of this allegation, where the supplier claimed not to manufacture the goods. However, the Tribunal found the supplier's statement vague and lacking clarity regarding the specific period of non-manufacture. The Tribunal highlighted the supporting evidence provided by the appellant, including check post endorsements, sales tax payment proof, and payment through cheques, indicating the receipt of goods. The absence of incriminating findings during the factory visit further weakened the case against the appellant.

4. Cross-examination rights: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a fair trial, noting that the appellant was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the supplier whose statement was pivotal in denying Cenvat credit. The Tribunal referenced precedents where the lack of corroborative evidence or failure to investigate thoroughly weakened the Revenue's case. Ultimately, due to deficient investigation and lack of corroborative evidence, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of providing a fair opportunity for cross-examination, the need for thorough investigation with corroborative evidence, and the requirement for clear and substantiated allegations before denying Cenvat credit and imposing penalties.