2017 (9) TMI 348 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - it was alleged that appellant is engaged in fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit. Appellant was fabricating document to show paper transaction by which they have availed wrong Cenvat credit and also passed on the same without actual payment of duty - Held that - appellant was admittedly engaged in the fraudulent activity for supplying fabricated Central Excise invoices, offence was clearly admitted by Shri. Ashish Goradia in his statement - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit, Fabrication of documents, Passing on credit without payment of duty, Statement by Shri. Ashish Goradia, Adjudicating authority's confirmation of demand, Commissioner(Appeals) upholding the decision.

Analysis:
The case revolved around the fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit by the appellant through the fabrication of documents and passing on credit without actual payment of duty. The department's case was primarily based on a statement given by Shri. Ashish Goradia, where he admitted to the offense. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals), leading the appellant to appeal before the tribunal. The absence of representation from the appellant was noted, while the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

The tribunal carefully examined the facts and found that the appellants were involved in fraudulent activities, aiming to profit by supplying fabricated Central Excise invoices. The tribunal highlighted the importance of maintaining proper records, emphasizing that the documentation in this case was fabricated to mislead the authorities. Despite the appellant's claims of maintaining records, no concrete evidence was presented to support this assertion. The tribunal also referenced legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Shiv Shakti Steel Tubes v. Commissioner, supporting the admissibility of statements made under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act as evidence.

Moreover, the tribunal cited the case of M/s. Gulabchand Silk Mills Vs CCE, Hyderabad, emphasizing that in clandestine activities, evidence may not be readily available, and admissions supported by recovery of incriminating goods hold significant weight. The tribunal concluded that Shri. Ashish Goradia's admission of the offenses was substantial evidence against the appellants. Consequently, the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the adjudicating authority and upheld the decision, dismissing the appeal.

In summary, the judgment highlighted the fraudulent activities of the appellant in availing Cenvat Credit through fabricated documents and passing on credit without payment of duty. The reliance on Shri. Ashish Goradia's admission, along with legal precedents supporting the admissibility of statements, strengthened the case against the appellants. The tribunal's thorough analysis and reference to relevant legal principles supported the decision to uphold the demand confirmation and dismissal of the appeal.