2016 (6) TMI 1012 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - allegation of non receipt of inputs - investigation was conducted and it was found that number of vehicles mentioned in the invoices issued to the appellants are not capable of for transportation of goods as these vehicles registration numbers are of two wheelers /light motor vehicles. - In fact during the impugned period, the owner of vehicles had transported the goods used fake vehicles number to avoid local taxes to that effect they have produced the newspaper report which admits the during the impugned period, the owner of vehicles had transported the goods used fake vehicle registration number and a drive was launched against those vehicle owners Held that - the adjudicating authority is required to examine the newspaper report before denial of credit to the appellants. If there is any truth in the newspaper report, the same may be considered as evidence produced by the appellants for receipt of the inputs. Both sides are at liberty to produce the evidence in their favour to reach to real conclusion whether the appellants have received inputs or not. - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues: Denial of credit on inputs due to alleged fake vehicle numbers used for transportation of goods.

In this case, the appellants appealed against orders denying credit on inputs received by them, as the vehicles used for transportation of goods were deemed incapable. The appellants procured inputs from a main manufacturer through a registered dealer for manufacturing final products. The Revenue alleged that the vehicles' registration numbers mentioned in the invoices were fake and not capable of transporting goods. Show cause notices were issued, duty demands confirmed, interest imposed, and penalties levied on the appellants, registered dealers, and manufacturer buyers. The appellants contended that they were bona fide purchasers, had paid for the inputs in advance, and used them for manufacturing final products. They argued that despite the fake vehicle numbers, they had received and utilized the goods, and no evidence was presented to refute this. The appellants requested a review based on a newspaper report indicating a drive against owners using fake vehicle numbers during the relevant period. The appellants urged that credit should not be denied solely based on the vehicle registration numbers. They cited a similar case precedent to support their stance.

The learned AR submitted that the matter had been previously remanded to the adjudicating authority by the Tribunal and requested a similar remand in this case. After considering the arguments and case law, the Member (Judicial) directed that the adjudicating authority must assess the newspaper report as potential evidence of the appellants' receipt of inputs. Both parties were instructed to present any additional evidence supporting their positions. The adjudicating authority was tasked with determining whether credit should be denied based on the evidence provided. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the adjudicating authority for further examination. The adjudicating authority was given a timeframe of thirty days to review the evidence and sixty days to issue appropriate orders based on the findings.

In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of by remanding the case back to the adjudicating authority for a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented by both parties regarding the receipt of inputs and the validity of denying credit based on the alleged fake vehicle numbers used for transportation of goods.