2015 (10) TMI 1325 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - credit taken by the respondent on the strength of duty paying documents issued by first stage dealer - Held that - Invoices issued by M/s. S K Garg and sons giving details of transporters as well as manufacturer supplier of the goods. No investigation was conducted at the end of manufacturer supplier as well as transporter of the goods to reveal the truth. The case has been made against the respondents on the presumption that supplier dealer is not existing firm therefore there was only paper transaction. Cases cannot be booked merely on the presumption and assumption there should be corroborative evidence to prove the allegations. In this case allegation has not been supported with tangible evidence. Therefore learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the proceedings against the respondents. In these circumstances I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and same is upheld - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against allowing Cenvat credit based on duty paying documents issued by a first stage dealer
- Allegation of non-existence of the first stage dealer and denial of Cenvat credit
- Lack of tangible evidence to support the allegation

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that allowed the Cenvat credit taken by the respondent based on duty paying documents issued by a first stage dealer, M/s. S K Garg & sons. The investigation revealed that M/s. S K Garg & sons was a non-existent firm, and the department presumed that the goods were not procured by the appellant, leading to a show cause notice denying the Cenvat credit. The adjudicating authority denied the credit, confirmed the duty demand, and imposed penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order due to the lack of tangible evidence from the Revenue proving that the transactions were merely on paper without actual goods being received by the respondent.

2. The Revenue argued that M/s. S K Garg & sons was a non-existing firm, as confirmed by the landlord's statement that the premises were never let out to them. It was contended that since M/s. S K Garg & sons did not have storage facilities, they only issued invoices without physically delivering the goods to the respondent. Therefore, the Revenue sought to set aside the impugned order based on the non-existence of the first stage dealer and the lack of physical delivery of goods.

3. In the absence of representation from the respondents, the appeal was considered on its merits. The learned AR reiterated the argument regarding the non-existence of M/s. S K Garg & sons and the lack of physical delivery of goods, emphasizing the issuance of invoices without actual supply. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of any request from the respondents and proceeded to evaluate the submissions made by the Revenue.

4. Upon reviewing the submissions and the records, the Tribunal found that the invoices issued by M/s. S K Garg & sons contained details of transporters and manufacturer suppliers, but no investigation was conducted at the end of these entities to ascertain the veracity of the transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that cases cannot be established solely on presumptions and assumptions; there must be corroborative evidence to support the allegations. Since the allegations against the respondents lacked tangible evidence, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of tangible evidence in such cases.