2017 (1) TMI 19 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fake invoices - Held that - Admittedly, during the impugned period, the main appellant did manufacture final products and cleared them on payment of duty. No examination of this aspect has been made either in the investigation or by the Adjudicating Authority. On the same set of investigations, the invoices issued to various other manufacturer, who were dealing with KPIPL in producing PVC compounds and master batches were questioned. In many cases, the proceedings were concluded by denying credits availed in such transactions. On appeal, we find that the Tribunal had upheld the appellant s plea regarding correctness of the credit availed. Regarding credit of ₹ 1,89,789/- availed on imported inputs, the appellants are not contesting the same. The denial of credit in the present case cannot be sustained on the basis of reasoning adopted by the Original Authority - appeal allowed - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, denial of cenvat credit, alleged paper transactions, disallowance of credit on imported goods, penalties imposed.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the denial of cenvat credit to a manufacturer of power cords and connectors based on alleged paper transactions with a supplier. The Original Authority denied cenvat credit of a substantial amount on the grounds that the goods related to the credits were not physically received and used by the manufacturer for their final products. Additionally, an amount related to imported goods was also disallowed. Various penalties were imposed on the manufacturer and individuals associated with them.

2. The appellant contended that they did purchase the raw materials from the supplier, physically received and utilized them in their manufacturing process. They provided evidence of payments made via crossed cheques, maintained clear accounts, and highlighted that similar cases with other manufacturers had been decided in favor of cenvat credit availment. The appellant presented ledger accounts and delivery details to support their claims.

3. The Departmental Authorities supported the findings of the lower authorities, citing evidence from transporters indicating that the inputs were not actually delivered to the manufacturer's premises. They emphasized the necessity to consider the paper transactions by the supplier in assessing the eligibility for cenvat credit.

4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, found that the denial of cenvat credit was primarily based on the unreliability of the supplier's integrity. However, the Tribunal noted that there was a lack of detailed analysis of the appellant's defense by the Original Authority. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence to establish that the manufacturer did not physically receive the inputs for which credit was claimed.

5. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the treatment of evidence, such as the admissibility of statements from truck drivers and the lack of discussion on how the manufacturer could produce final products without the alleged inputs. The Tribunal also noted similar cases where credits were questioned but later upheld on appeal, indicating inconsistency in decision-making.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the denial of credit could not be sustained based on the reasoning of the Original Authority. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation regarding imported inputs and overturned the impugned order, allowing the appeals.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence, and the final decision reached in favor of the appellant.