2008 (8) TMI 303 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat credit to the respondent on the ground that the invoices on which Cenvat/Modvat credit was availed, indicated the description of the goods, which were not found in the factory premises and the inculpatery statement of the employee that the description of the goods/inputs mentioned in the invoices could not have been used in the factory premises of the respondent - held that mere inculpatery statement is not enough to confirm the demand of Cenvat credit availed by the respondent is correct

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit based on discrepancies in invoices.

Analysis:
The case involved the denial of Cenvat credit to the respondent due to discrepancies in the description of goods on invoices. The Revenue contended that the goods mentioned in the invoices were not found in the factory premises, supported by an inculpatory statement from an employee. The Revenue issued a show cause notice, which was dropped by the Jt. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the dropping of proceedings. The Revenue then appealed to the Tribunal.

The learned SDR argued that the inculpatory statement by the factory's authorized signatory and Manager was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), indicating irregular credit availment. The physical stock taking during the investigation further confirmed this. The SDR urged the Tribunal to set aside the lower authorities' orders.

Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the appeal and held that the statements of employees admitting discrepancies were insufficient evidence. The Tribunal found that the balance of convenience favored the respondent, as the department failed to verify the invoices from the consignor's end. The Tribunal emphasized that confessional statements alone were inadequate evidence for irregular credit availment.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating that the Revenue provided no contrary evidence to challenge the findings. The Tribunal agreed that mere inculpatory statements were insufficient to confirm the Cenvat credit demand. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected. The cross objection supporting the impugned order was also disposed of.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's lack of evidence to contradict the lower authorities' findings, coupled with the insufficiency of inculpatory statements alone, justified upholding the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit to the respondent.