2016 (8) TMI 1106 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - fraudulent Cenvat credit availed on the invoices issued by M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd - Held that - On going through decisions of this Tribunal in cases of Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Thane-I, it is found that facts, of other cases, evidences and modus operandi are more or less same in these decisions therefore the ratio of the various decisions of Tribunal are squarely applicable in the present case. Therefore it is established that the appellant have availed Cenvat credit fraudulently without receipt of the goods. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Fraudulent Availment of Cenvat Credit.
2. Evidence of Transportation and Receipt of Goods.
3. Cross-examination of Witnesses.
4. Limitation and Fraud.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Fraudulent Availment of Cenvat Credit:
The core issue in this case is the fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit by M/s. Steel Rolling Mill of Maharashtra (M/s. SRMM) based on invoices issued by M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. without actual receipt of the material. The Tribunal found that M/s. SRMM availed Cenvat credit on invoices without receiving the corresponding goods, which was confirmed by the investigation and comparison with similar cases such as Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd and Bhagwati Steel Cast Ltd. The modus operandi and evidences were consistent across these cases, indicating a pattern of fraudulent activities.

2. Evidence of Transportation and Receipt of Goods:
The Revenue presented substantial evidence showing that the goods were not transported to M/s. SRMM's factory. The investigation revealed that the goods were transported to various destinations in Gujarat, not to the appellant's factory. The appellant failed to provide any documents such as gate registers, goods receipt notes, or transport receipts to prove the receipt of goods. The Tribunal noted that the vehicle registration numbers indicated interstate transportation, contradicting the appellant's claims.

3. Cross-examination of Witnesses:
The appellants argued that they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, which they claimed prejudiced their case. However, the Tribunal held that the denial of cross-examination did not cause any prejudice to the appellants since they failed to provide any evidence contradicting the Revenue's claims. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including Maya Mahal Industries and Jagdish Shanker Trivedi, to support its decision that the denial of cross-examination was justified and did not affect the outcome of the case.

4. Limitation and Fraud:
The appellants contended that the demand was time-barred. However, the Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that the case involved clear fraud, as the credit was availed without receiving the duty-paid goods. The Tribunal emphasized that fraudulent activities justify the invocation of extended limitation periods, thereby upholding the demand and penalties imposed on the appellants.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming that M/s. SRMM fraudulently availed Cenvat credit without receiving the goods. The appeals were dismissed based on the consistent evidence and modus operandi observed in similar cases. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding cross-examination and limitation, affirming the penalties and demand raised by the Revenue. The judgment reinforces the principle that fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit without actual receipt of goods warrants strict action and penalties.