2015 (10) TMI 1311 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Invoices issued without actual receipt of goods - Held that - appellant received input from M/s. Annapurana Impex Pvt Ltd. In the case of M/s. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. (2013 (9) TMI 580 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD), Cenvat Credit was denied to the other manufacturers in respect of the inputs received from M/s. Annapurana Impex Pvt. Ltd. In that case, the Division Bench remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with certain direction. In my considered view, the present appellants should be allowed the similar treatment as in the case of M/s. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. (2013 (9) TMI 580 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD). - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat Credit on duty paid inputs due to availing credit without receiving goods.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to multiple appeals arising from a common order regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit on duty paid inputs, specifically Copper Ingots and scraps, by the appellant company engaged in the manufacture of Copper and Brass Articles. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit and imposed penalties on the appellants for availing credit based on Cenvat invoices without physically receiving the goods. The Learned Senior Advocate representing the appellants argued that the inputs were received with duty paying documents issued by a specific supplier, M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt Ltd. The advocate highlighted a similar case involving another manufacturer who had availed credit on inputs from the same supplier, where the Tribunal had remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

Upon reviewing the impugned order, the judge noted that the appellants had indeed received inputs from M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt Ltd., the same supplier involved in the previously mentioned case. Drawing parallels to the earlier case of M/s. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd., where Cenvat Credit denial was challenged and remanded, the judge concluded that the present appellants should be granted similar treatment. Consequently, the judge set aside the impugned order and remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, instructing them to consider the submissions of the appellants and the precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd.

In conclusion, the judgment allowed all the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing that the adjudicating authority must provide a proper opportunity of hearing before passing a new order. The decision underscores the importance of fair consideration and adherence to legal precedents in matters concerning the denial of Cenvat Credit based on the receipt of duty paid inputs.