2015 (10) TMI 2199 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Non existence of supplier of goods - Held that - Goods were supplied by various merchant manufacturers for processing, on job charge basis and the goods were supplied to them accompanied with Central Excise invoice. They processed the goods and which were taken by the merchant manufacturers. He also stated that they received job charges for the processing of the grey fabrics. It is categorically stated that they received job charges by cheque from the various merchant manufacturers. It is seen that in 2005, the Central Excise Officers found that the suppliers of the Grey fabrics were not in existence. We find that the Dy Commissioner, C&CE Div IV, Surat by his letter dtd 4.12.2008 in response to query under RTI application had forwarded to copy of the CE Registration Certificate of the suppliers. Thus, it is clearly evident that the suppliers were in existence during the material period. - Decision in the case of M/s Prayagraj Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd (2013 (5) TMI 705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) followed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Barred by limitation - demand of duty for the period May 2003 to October 2004.
2. Existence of suppliers during the material period.
3. Application of Cenvat Credit Rule 2002.
4. Penalty imposition on the Director of the appellant company.

Issue 1: Barred by limitation - demand of duty for the period May 2003 to October 2004:
The appellant argued that the demand of duty for the mentioned period was time-barred as there was no evidence of intent to evade payment of duty. They referenced the statement of Shyam Sunder Bhanawat and a letter from the Dy Commissioner confirming the existence of suppliers during that period. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar case was cited to support the limitation defense. The Tribunal agreed with this argument and set aside the demand of duty along with interest and penalty as barred by limitation.

Issue 2: Existence of suppliers during the material period:
The statement of Shyam Sunder Dhanawat, Director of the Appellant Company, clarified that the goods were received from various merchant manufacturers for processing on a job charge basis. It was highlighted that the suppliers were in existence during the material period, as confirmed by the Dy Commissioner's response to an RTI query. This information played a crucial role in establishing the existence of suppliers and supporting the appellant's case.

Issue 3: Application of Cenvat Credit Rule 2002:
The appellant was availing Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rule 2002 for the payment of duty on the final product. The dispute arose when a show cause notice was issued proposing to deny the Cenvat Credit, alleging non-existence of suppliers of the Grey fabric. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the proper utilization of the Cenvat Credit and the relevance of supporting documentation to validate the credit availed by the appellant.

Issue 4: Penalty imposition on the Director of the appellant company:
The Adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty on Shri Shyam Sunder Dhanawat, Director of the appellant company, in addition to confirming the demand of duty and interest. However, based on the findings related to the limitation defense and the existence of suppliers, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, thereby setting aside the penalty imposed on the Director as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case revolved around the limitation period for demanding duty, the existence of suppliers during the material period, the application of Cenvat Credit Rule 2002, and the penalty imposition on the Director of the appellant company. By considering the arguments presented, relevant statements, and legal precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory limitations and the availability of supporting evidence in such matters.