9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2449 - AT - Central ExciseFraudulent Availment of CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Held that - Appellant M/s. Mansi Industries is also party in the case of M/s. Akik Dyechem & Others (2013 (9) TMI 415 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD). The present proceeding is related with investigation in the case of M/s. Akik Dyechem & Others (supra). In that case, the investigation taken up by the Revenue revealed that the premises registered for manufacture of Aluminium Ingots did not have any electricity connection, only one manually operated furnace which was also being operated by a different person during the period from 1997 onwards. The Tribunal upheld the adjudication order. In the present case, we find that the proprietor of M/s. Itisha Alu-Chem Industries had admitted that they have issued invoices to the appellant to facilitate for availment of CENVAT credit. It is clearly evident that the invoices were fake and therefore, the appellant is not eligible to avail credit on the fake invoices. - appellant is given option to pay penalty 25% of the duty alongwith entire amount of duty and interest within 30 days from the date of communication of the order - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on grounds of limitation. 2. Allegations of fraudulent issuance of invoices to facilitate CENVAT credit. 3. Applicability of Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 4. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Extended period of limitation for demand of CENVAT credit. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute regarding the denial of CENVAT credit on the grounds of limitation. The appellant contested the denial, claiming no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty payment. The appellant argued that they received goods from a firm under Central Excise duty documents and utilized them in their finished products. The issue of whether the appellant took reasonable steps as per Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules was raised by the appellant's advocate, citing relevant legal precedents to support their case. 2. The central issue revolved around the fraudulent issuance of invoices by a firm to facilitate CENVAT credit for other manufacturers. The investigation revealed that the invoices were fake, leading to the disallowance of CENVAT credit for the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not eligible to avail credit based on these fake invoices, emphasizing the importance of genuine duty-paying documents for claiming CENVAT credit. 3. The imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was a significant aspect of the judgment. The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty equal to the disallowed CENVAT credit amount on the appellant. The appellant was given the option to pay a reduced penalty of 25% of the duty amount along with the entire duty and interest within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal upheld the adjudication order in this regard. 4. The judgment also addressed the issue of the extended period of limitation for the demand of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal considered the findings of previous cases and observed that the reversal of CENVAT credit by the manufacturing unit was not seriously challenged and was correctly upheld. It was emphasized that the responsibility of verifying the legitimacy of documents for availing CENVAT credit rested with the manufacturing unit, and penalties were correctly imposed for wrongly availing CENVAT credit. 5. The judgment referenced legal precedents and decisions from the Tribunal and the High Court to support the conclusions reached regarding the denial of CENVAT credit, imposition of penalties, and the applicability of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts and legal provisions, ensuring that the principles of CENVAT credit rules and penalty provisions were upheld in the case.
|
