2015 (12) TMI 6 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Issue of invoices without actual receipt of goods - Held that - Revenue in their grounds of appeal have reiterated their stands that the Cenvat credit was wrongly passed to the respondent. However, they have not referred to any evidence on record, which was the main reason for the appellant authority to set aside the demand. They have simply reiterated that the respondent had paid back the Cenvat credit during investigation and as such cannot contest the same. I find no merits in the above stand of the Revenue. The payment of Cenvat credit cannot act as estoppel against the assessee to the contest the confirmation before the higher appellant authorities. - no reasons to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Alleged inadmissible Cenvat credit availed by the respondent based on invoices from a registered dealer.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the recovery of alleged inadmissible Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,12,950 availed by the respondent, a manufacturer of Material Handling Equipment, based on invoices from a registered dealer, M/s. Bhagwati Trading Company, Faridabad.

2. Investigations revealed that no inputs were supplied by the registered dealer, leading to the initiation of proceedings against the respondent for recovery of the disputed Cenvat credit. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the Revenue to file the present appeal.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on the lack of concrete evidence in the show cause notice or the Order-in-Original to support the conclusion that no Cenvat goods were supplied by M/s. Bhagwati Trading Company to the respondent. The absence of investigation reports or statements from the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence weakened the case against the respondent.

4. The Revenue, in their appeal, failed to provide any new evidence to support their claim, merely reiterating that the respondent had repaid the Cenvat credit during the investigation. However, the mere repayment did not prevent the respondent from contesting the demand before higher authorities, as held by the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the Revenue's appeal due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the claim of inadmissible Cenvat credit availed by the respondent. The judgment emphasized the importance of specific and cogent evidence in such cases, highlighting the need for a strong legal basis for confirming demands of this nature.