2015 (10) TMI 2322 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Non receipt of actual goods - Held that - manufacturer of inputs is not M/s. Jay Aay Alloys but is Ruby Stnps Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Bee Cee Steels. No investigation are conducted at then end. Further, the statement of M/s. Sidh Balak Enterprises is only in respect of manufacturer M/s. Jay Aay Alloys. He has also not named the present manufacturing unit in his statement. As such, there is virtually nothing on record to show that the goods have not travelled from the concerned manufacturer to the appellant - Tribunal in the case of M/s. Talson Mill Store vs. CCE Ludhiana 2014 (2) TMI 443 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has set aside the identical confirmation of demand. Accordingly by following the said order I set aside the impugned order confirming the demand and imposing penalty on all the appellants. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Demand confirmation and penalty imposition based on credit availed without receiving inputs.

Analysis:
The judgment by Ms. Archana Wadhwa addressed the issue of confirming a demand of Rs. 1,94,771 against the appellant and imposing an identical penalty due to the denial of credit availed on the grounds of not receiving the actual inputs, only the invoices. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing ingots, had been availing Cenvat credit on duty paid for raw materials received from a registered dealer, Sidh Balak Enterprises, through their invoices. Investigations revealed that Sidh Balak Enterprises had been procuring goods from Jay Aay Alloys Pvt. Ltd. through Ved Trading Company without actual clearance of goods. However, investigations at the manufacturer's end, Jay Aay Alloys Pvt. Ltd., showed no actual clearance of goods, only issuing invoices. The appellant's situation differed as the actual manufacturers of the inputs were Ruby Stnps Pvt. Ltd. and Bee Cee Steels, with no investigations conducted at their end. Sidh Balak Enterprises' statement only implicated Jay Aay Alloys, not the present manufacturers, providing insufficient evidence that the goods did not reach the appellant.

In a significant reference to a previous case, the judgment cited the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Talson Mill Store vs. CCE Ludhiana, where a similar demand confirmation was set aside. Following this precedent, the judgment by Ms. Archana Wadhwa set aside the impugned order confirming the demand and penalty imposition on all the appellants, ultimately allowing the appeal. The decision was made after a thorough analysis of the investigations, discrepancies in the supply chain, and legal precedents, ensuring a fair and just outcome based on the available evidence and legal principles.