2017 (6) TMI 369 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fake invoices - manufacturer supplier stated that they have issued only invoices and not supplied the goods to the appellant - Held that - the Revenue has failed to prove as from where the goods have been received in their factory. In that circumstances, benefit of doubt goes in favor of the appellant - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of cenvat credit, duty demand, interest, and penalty.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order denying cenvat credit, demanding duty, interest, and imposing a penalty. The investigation revealed discrepancies between the statements of the manufacturer supplier and the appellant regarding the receipt and use of goods. The appellant claimed to have received goods for manufacturing final products, while the Revenue relied on statements denying the transportation of goods to the appellant. The appellant argued that without concrete evidence, cenvat credit cannot be denied, citing a relevant case law. The Revenue contended that since the transporter denied transporting goods to the appellant, cenvat credit was rightfully denied.

During the proceedings, the appellant maintained that they had indeed received and used the goods in question for manufacturing final products. The Revenue's case was primarily based on statements from the manufacturer supplier and a transporter, without providing substantial evidence to refute the appellant's claim of receiving the goods. The tribunal noted the lack of evidence proving non-receipt of goods by the appellant and the failure to establish the actual source of the goods used in manufacturing. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was given to the appellant, leading to the regularization of the cenvat credit availed by the appellant. As a result, the impugned order denying cenvat credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with appropriate relief, if any.