2016 (6) TMI 913 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - proceedings initiated by the show cause notice issued alleging wrongful availement of credit without actual receipt of goods - Held that - This Tribunal in the final Order dated 20-01-2016, in the case of M/s Sri Lakshmi Industries Ltd and another 2016 (6) TMI 823 - CESTAT HYDERABAD has analyzed the very same evidence and has set aside the demand raised on the allegation of fraudulent availment of credit on invoices issued by KMC. After examining the evidences presented by this case, I do not find any ground to take a different view. The whole case is founded on statements and private records of third party, Shri Prabhakar. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of wrongful availment of Cenvat credit without actual receipt of goods.
2. Disputed refund claim of deposited amount during investigation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Allegation of wrongful availment of Cenvat credit without actual receipt of goods
The appeals E/258/2010 and E/826/2010 were heard together due to the similarity in the issues raised. The primary contention was regarding the wrongful availment of Cenvat credit without actual receipt of goods by the respondents. The Revenue challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-03-2009, which set aside the demand, interest, and penalty raised on this allegation. The investigation revealed that the respondents had deposited a sum of ?3,00,000 during the inquiry. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) both concluded that the Revenue failed to establish that the respondents availed Cenvat credit without receiving the goods. The case revolved around the irregular credit taken on invoices from various suppliers without actual receipt of materials. The argument presented by the learned AR highlighted discrepancies in the stores inward register and job work register. However, upon analysis, it was found that all statutory records were in order, and the evidence relied heavily on statements and private records of a third party, lacking independent corroboration.

Issue 2: Disputed refund claim of deposited amount during investigation
The second issue pertained to the refund claim filed by the respondents for the amount deposited during the investigation. The original authority sanctioned the refund, which was later upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal E/826/2010 was filed by the department challenging this refund sanction. However, since the main appeal E/258/2010 was dismissed due to lack of merit, the appeal regarding the refund claim was also deemed devoid of merits and subsequently dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of independent evidence to support confessional statements and establish charges of clandestine activities or duty evasion.

In conclusion, both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities. The judgment highlighted the significance of corroborative evidence in establishing allegations and the need for thorough examination of records and statements to substantiate claims of wrongful availment of credits.