2015 (9) TMI 37 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - Recovery of incriminating documents - Held that - Entire case of the Revenue is based upon the statements of the authorized representatives of M/s Usha Enterprisesand M/s SreeTirumala Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Apart from that, there is not even an iota of evidence on record to show that the appellant has not actually received the inputs in question. Even the said statements have not been tested about their correctness by granting cross examination. There is no inculpatory statement of the present appellant and on the contrary, the appellant s representative, has clarified, in the statement recorded during the investigation that the inputs were actually received by them. Evidence collected by the Revenue is only in the shape of statements of third party. It is well settled that in the case of clandestine allegation, the onus to establish the same is on the Revenue, which is required to be satisfied by production of sufficient, tangible and positive evidence. The uncorroborated statements of third party cannot be adopted as an evidence, without corroboration from an independent source though such statements can be of some value but cannot be solely relied upon for the purpose of holding against the assessee. Revenue is silent on the issue that if the appellant has not received the materials in question, how have they manufactured the corresponding final products. It is not the Revenue s case that they have procured the raw material from any other alternative source. It is not only impractical but impossible to manufacture the final product without raw material in question. The appellants having reflected the raw material in their Cenvat credit account and having shown the utilization of the same, heavy duty stands cast on the Revenue to establish that such raw material was not the one which was covered by invoice in question and stands procured by the assessee from any other source. There is neither any allegation much less any evidence to reflect upon the procurement of raw material from any outside source. - no merits in the Revenue s stand. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Alleged availment of Cenvat credit without receiving raw material.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS Bars, procured raw materials from a specific source. A search conducted at another entity revealed incriminating documents implicating a fake arrangement involving the appellant, M/s Usha Enterprises, and M/s SreeTirumala Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.

2. Statements from various individuals were recorded, admitting to the arrangements and financial transactions. The Revenue alleged that the appellant availed Cenvat credit without actually receiving the raw material, leading to proceedings, demand confirmation, and penalty imposition.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the Revenue's case relied on uncorroborated statements without documentary evidence. Transporters' involvement was not investigated, and the appellant's officers did not deny receiving the raw material. The Commissioner set aside the original order based on transporter affidavits.

4. The Revenue appealed the Commissioner's decision to the Tribunal, which remanded the case due to consideration of new evidence. In the subsequent proceedings, the Commissioner upheld the original order, leading to the present appeal.

5. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue's case lacked concrete evidence beyond statements from third parties. The onus to prove clandestine activities rested with the Revenue, requiring tangible evidence. Lack of corroboration and failure to investigate transporters raised doubts on the Revenue's allegations.

6. The appellant's receipt of raw material was confirmed through statements and Cenvat credit records, challenging the Revenue's claim of non-receipt. The impossibility of manufacturing final products without raw materials from the disputed invoices further weakened the Revenue's case.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's stance, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of concrete evidence in allegations of clandestine activities and the necessity to establish claims beyond uncorroborated statements.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the progression of the case, the arguments presented by both sides, and the legal reasoning behind the final decision.