2017 (9) TMI 867 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fake invoices - input - Stainless Steel Coil - Held that - there is a violation of principles of natural justice - It is a settled position, that whatever strong evidences are there against the appellant but if the appellant want to defend on the basis of certain evidences, it is the requirement of natural justice to consider all the submissions made by the appellant in their defence. In these circumstances, the matter needs re-consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Fraudulent availing of cenvat credit on Stainless Steel Coil, denial of cenvat credit, violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant allegedly availing fraudulent cenvat credit on Stainless Steel Coil without actually receiving the input. The department conducted a detailed investigation, revealing discrepancies in the transportation of goods to the appellant's factory. The demand for cenvat credit was confirmed, along with penalties and interest.

The appellant contended that the input was indeed received and sent for job work to another company. Statements of the job worker and driver were recorded, confirming the goods were manufactured on a job work basis. However, the show cause notice did not consider these statements or related documents, and the cross-examination of these individuals was denied.

The Revenue reiterated the findings, emphasizing various pieces of evidence, including statements, investigations, and a confessional statement. They argued that the appellant never received the input, engaged in a scheme to defraud the government, and was not involved in manufacturing or clearing goods, thus not eligible for cenvat credit.

Upon careful consideration, the Member found a violation of natural justice as the adjudicating authority did not consider the appellant's defense based on job work submissions. The Member directed a re-consideration, instructing the authority to review the statements of key individuals, allow cross-examination, and conduct a denovo adjudication within three months, emphasizing the appellant's right to a fair hearing.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed for remand to the adjudicating authority, stressing the importance of considering all submissions in defense and ensuring a fair process for the appellant. The appellant was directed to cooperate in the proceedings for the denovo adjudication order.