2016 (1) TMI 844 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - Genuineness of the transaction not proved - Held that - The appellant failed to establish through cogent evidences that the materials mentioned in the respective invoices were received and the duty amount mentioned in the said invoices were also paid to the treasury by the input supplier. Now, before me also, the ld.Advocate for the appellant could not place any of these documents except Xerox copy of one demand draft of ₹ 1.00 Lakh drawn in favour of M/s.Three F-Filters (P) Ltd. dated 08.03.2001, without establishing that this amount related to the inputs purchased from M/s.Three F-Filters (P) Ltd., New Delhi during the relevant period and against the disputed invoices. In absence of evidence to rebut the charges labeled in the demand notice, the findings recorded by the authorities below needs no interference. In the result, the order of the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) is upheld and the Appeal is rejected. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 09.08.2011 alleging irregular availment of MODVAT Credit.
- Violation of principles of natural justice and sustainability of demand.
- Failure to produce relevant documents and evidences.
- Rejection of appeal by Commissioner(Appeals) and subsequent appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No.237/Kol-III/2011 alleging irregular availment of MODVAT Credit by the appellant in the manufacture of Industrial Filters. The demand notice was based on fake invoices issued by a supplier. The initial demand was confirmed with a penalty by the adjudicating authority, which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals), leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued a gross violation of natural justice, claiming they were not provided with necessary documents or their submissions were not considered. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the appellant failed to provide material evidence despite multiple opportunities, leading to the rejection of their claims by the authorities.

3. The Tribunal noted that this was the second round of litigation, with a previous remand to provide sufficient evidence. However, the appellant still failed to produce essential documents or request cross-examination of witnesses. The appellant's counsel could only present a Xerox copy of a demand draft without establishing its relevance to the disputed invoices. Due to the lack of evidence to refute the charges, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order, rejecting the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals) due to the appellant's failure to provide substantial evidence, leading to the rejection of the appeal against the demand notice based on irregular MODVAT Credit availment.