2015 (10) TMI 104 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Availment on imported Nickel for use in the manufacture of final product - Held that - Adjudicating authority disallowed the credits of ₹ 1.30 crores on the ground that the appellant availed the credits on the basis of invoice without receipt of the goods. The Tribunal in the respondent s own case dropped the demand which was upheld by Hon ble High Court - submission of the Learned Authorised Representative in respect of the balance amount of the demand, which was dropped by the Adjudicating Authority has no merit. The Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue relied upon the decisions in different context. On the other hand the decision of the Tribunal against this impugned order should be accepted as upheld by the Hon ble High Court. We find that the Tribunal already considered all the issues in the Final Order dtd 6.2.2008 and therefore, there is no reason to interfere the Adjudication Order. The appeals filed by the Revenue cannot be sustained. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Adjudication Order regarding cenvat credit disallowance.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an Adjudication Order where a portion of the demand of cenvat credit was dropped. The Respondent was engaged in manufacturing SS Ingots, SS Flats, and SS Round Bars, availing cenvat credit on imported Nickel for the final product. A Show Cause Notice proposed a demand of cenvat credit of Rs. 2.09 crores along with penalties. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed Rs. 1.30 crores of cenvat credit and imposed penalties. The respondents appealed against the confirmation of demand, while the Revenue appealed to increase penalties and demand the balance cenvat credit dropped.

The Tribunal allowed the respondents' appeals, which the Revenue challenged in the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue reiterated grounds of appeal, arguing that evidence regarding LR was not appreciated, and vehicle capacity was insufficient for goods mentioned in documents. The Revenue cited precedents to support their case.

The Adjudicating Authority disallowed credits based on invoices without goods receipt. The Tribunal in the respondent's case had dropped the demand, upheld by the High Court. The judgment analyzed evidence of material diversion and utilization, concluding no evidence of diversion existed. The decision emphasized the lack of valid reasons to disregard utilization certificates.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's submission regarding the dropped demand. The decision upheld by the High Court was considered final. The Tribunal had thoroughly analyzed all issues previously, leading to the rejection of Revenue's appeals. The appeals filed by the Revenue were ultimately rejected, maintaining the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the judgment comprehensively addressed the issues of cenvat credit disallowance, material diversion, and utilization certificates. The Tribunal's decision was upheld by the High Court, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals.