2017 (2) TMI 878 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - refusal on the basis of certain irregularities alleged with reference to transportation and non-existence of evidence for transportation of duty paid inputs to the premises of the respondent - Held that - The original authority has recorded that vehicles which transported the duty paid inputs were deployed by Shri Ravikant Dwivedi Director of M/s. Saral Logistics System Pvt. Ltd. from his office situated in Rama Chauraha. The question regarding the transportation of raw material has been discussed at length by the original authority - the original authority also recorded that the freight has been regularly paid on cash payment voucher which are acknowledged by the transporter. Revenue could not in any manner bring out the non-receipt of duty paid raw materials or the bogus nature of all the transactions - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dropping demand of Cenvat credit on the basis of transportation irregularities and lack of evidence for receipt of goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, regarding the availing of Cenvat credit by the respondents on certain raw materials. The investigation revealed that the respondents had availed credit on goods not received, leading to the initiation of proceedings. The Commissioner dropped the demand, prompting the Revenue to appeal.

The Revenue contended that the transportation services provider denied transporting the goods, and the reliance on an affidavit was improper. The facts alleged in the notice were not properly appreciated, according to the Revenue. The dispute centered around 18 invoices, with the respondents claiming the materials were received from specific suppliers, supported by proper invoices.

The Commissioner's reasons for dropping the demand included the lack of evidence regarding the alleged non-transportation of goods, absence of discrepancies in stock, and the payment made for the inputs by the respondents. The appeal relied on the testimony of the transportation provider, but the original authority's findings supported the respondents' claims. The investigation failed to prove the non-receipt of goods or the fraudulent nature of the transactions, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order, as the evidence provided by the Revenue was insufficient to deny the Cenvat credit. The lack of concrete proof regarding the non-receipt of goods made it legally untenable to reject the credit based on sketchy evidence without corroboration. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner.