2017 (4) TMI 883 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - non receipt of inputs - Held that - No discrepancy is pointed out by department on the respective dates in the registers maintained by the appellant. The department has also not conducted any investigation with regard to the transportation of goods to the appellant company - Other than mere allegation that some entries were found in the private note book of a third party there is no evidence to prove fraudulent availment of credit - there is no ground to take a different view and also the revenue has miserably failed to establish that appellant has engaged in fraudulent availment of CENVAT credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against confirmation of demand interest and penalties based on alleged fraudulent CENVAT credit availed by the appellant company.

Analysis:
1. Confirmation of Demand: The appeal was filed against the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the confirmation of demand interest and penalties. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing aluminum bottles, was accused of availing fraudulent CENVAT credit on invoices from registered dealers without receiving the inputs. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant argued that all inputs were properly accounted for, and no discrepancy was found in the statutory registers maintained by them. The department's case relied on private notebooks seized from a third party's residence, which the appellant contested as lacking substantial evidence.

2. Allegations and Defenses: The department alleged fraudulent credit availment based on three specific invoices. The appellant maintained that their records were in order, and no evidence indicated non-receipt of inputs. The appellant argued that the department failed to prove how they manufactured goods without receiving the alleged inputs. The appellant also highlighted inconsistencies in the adjudicating authority's findings and cited previous Tribunal judgments where similar demands were set aside due to lack of concrete evidence.

3. Evidence and Counter-Arguments: The department presented private notebooks and statements from the third party to support their case. The appellant refuted these claims, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence linking them to the alleged fraudulent activities. The appellant's counsel pointed out that the department did not investigate the transportation of goods to the appellant or raise any discrepancies in their maintained registers.

4. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence presented by both parties. It noted that similar cases involving private records from the same third party had been set aside due to insufficient evidence. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of independent evidence corroborating the department's allegations and the failure to establish fraudulent credit availment conclusively. The Tribunal concluded that the department had not proven the appellant's engagement in fraudulent CENVAT credit practices and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the department's case lacking in substantial evidence to support the allegations of fraudulent CENVAT credit availment by the appellant company. The judgment emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in such cases and cited previous rulings where similar demands were dismissed due to insufficient proof.