2015 (11) TMI 699 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - receipt of invoices without actual receipt of goods - allegation that suppliers have passed on inadmissible cenvat credit to various manufacturers including the appellants without actually supplying/ delivering the goods. - Held that - No iota of credible evidence has been brought on record to prove non-receipt of goods by the appellant. Though, the statements recorded from outside agencies have been relied on for confirmation of the duty demand, but the same nowhere stated the name of the appellant that only the invoices have been issued to it, without supplying the disputed goods. Hence, in my opinion, confirmation of duty/Cenvat demand, without proper evidence, is not legal and appropriate. Further, in view of the fact that the appellant has maintained adequate records to demonstrate receipt of the disputed goods under the cover of valid and proper duty paid documents, the charges leveled against the appellant for taking fraudulent credit is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, I am of the view that confirmation of the cenvat demand, imposition of penalty by the Authorities below are liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged irregular availing of cenvat credit based on invoices issued by suppliers without actual delivery of goods.
- Confirmation of duty demand, penalty imposition, and interest by Adjudication Order.
- Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) upholding Adjudication Order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle components and other parts, availed cenvat credit based on invoices from suppliers M/s Bhagwati Trading Company and M/s Ayushi Steel Company. Central Excise Range Officials found irregularities in the suppliers' practices, leading to the appellant reversing cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,04,102 for the disputed period. Despite this, the appellant expressed intent to contest the matter, resulting in Show Cause Proceedings and subsequent Adjudication Order confirming duty demand, penalty, and interest.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the disputed goods were legitimate inputs used in manufacturing, received with valid duty paying documents and duly recorded in cenvat registers and ledgers. Payments were made via approved banking channels, disputing allegations of non-receipt of goods. The appellant maintained records to prove receipt and legality of transactions.

3. The Respondent's representative supported the Adjudication Order's findings, justifying duty demand confirmation and penalty imposition.

4. The key issue before the Tribunal was whether the appellant could be held liable for duty on goods allegedly not received in the factory, as per invoices from second-stage dealers.

5. The Tribunal analyzed statements from outside parties, particularly from the proprietor of M/s Bhagwati Trading Co., to determine if the goods were actually received. Lack of concrete evidence proving non-receipt by the appellant, coupled with the absence of the appellant's name in relevant statements, led the Tribunal to conclude that the duty demand confirmation lacked legal basis. The appellant's maintenance of proper records and receipt of goods under valid documents supported the decision to set aside the duty demand, penalty, and confirm the appeal in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and outcome.