2015 (10) TMI 1324 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Issue of invoices without actual supply of goods - Held that - Cenvat credit sought to be denied on the premise that M/s. Sidh Balak Enterprises has made a statement that they are issuing invoices and not supplying the goods. Therefore, it is a paper transaction. In this case statement of appellant has been recorded wherein he has admitted that they have received the goods against the invoices issued by M/s. Sidh Balak Enterprises. To contravene to said statement, Revenue was required to find out whether the manufacturer supplier has supplied the said goods or not. Moreover, no investigation was conducted at the end of transporter to ascertain the fact that transporter has transported the goods from manufacturer supplier to deliver the goods to the appellant before me. The show cause notice was not required to be issued on the presumptions and assumptions. There should be corroborative evidence to prove the allegation, as there is no corroborative evidence to prove the allegation against the appellant, therefore, demand confirmed in the impugned order are not sustainable and it cannot be alleged that there was merely a paper transaction on which the appellant has taken the Cenvat credit. In these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against duty demand, interest, and penalty confirmation based on Cenvat credit denial.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of LPG Gas cylinders, appealed against an order confirming duty demand, interest, and penalty amounting to &8377; 90,524/- and &8377; 50,000/- respectively. The case revolved around the appellant procuring inputs from M/s. Sidh Balak Enterprises, a first stage dealer, and claiming Cenvat credit on duty paid on these inputs. An investigation revealed that M/s. Sidh Balak Enterprises issued invoices without actually supplying the goods. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny Cenvat credit based on these invoices, leading to the demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The lower authorities upheld the denial of Cenvat credit, considering it a mere paper transaction with M/s. Sidh Balak Enterprises. The appellant challenged this decision.

The appellant's counsel argued that M/s. Sidh Balak Enterprises had made a general submission in another case admitting non-supply of goods to a different entity, Bhawani Industries. They contended that without statements from the transporter and the manufacturer supplying the goods, the truth regarding the receipt of goods by the appellant as per the invoices from M/s. Sidh Balak Enterprises could not be ascertained, hence Cenvat credit should not be denied. On the contrary, the Revenue supported the findings of the impugned order.

Upon hearing both parties and considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the denial of Cenvat credit was primarily based on M/s. Sidh Balak Enterprises' statement about issuing invoices without supplying goods, characterizing it as a paper transaction. However, the appellant's statement indicated receiving goods against these invoices. The Tribunal emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to substantiate allegations, highlighting the lack of investigation into whether the manufacturer supplier actually delivered the goods to the appellant. As no such evidence was presented, the Tribunal deemed the demand in the impugned order unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the requirement for corroborative evidence to support allegations of non-receipt of goods in cases involving Cenvat credit denial based on purported paper transactions. The lack of such evidence led to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant.