2017 (11) TMI 996 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fake invoices - non-existent dealers - whether the principles laid down by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Prayag Raj Dying & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. s case is applicable and the demands raised for extended period of limitation is bad in law? - extended period of limitation - Held that - it was held the case of Prayag Raj Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. that in the absence of any allegation that the appellants were parties to the fraud, the larger period of limitation cannot be applied, and thus, even if the original document was assumed to be issued by practising fraud, the appellants being holders in due course for valuable consideration without notice, the larger period of limitation cannot be extended. The conclusion has been drawn that the Appellant had failed to establish that these dealers who had issued invoices to them, based on which the Appellant had availed CENVAT credit were not in existence. These facts were well within the knowledge of the Appellant, since they failed to establish their claim existence of these dealers made before this Tribunal in the first round of litigation, for verification of which the matter was remanded. The Appellant could not produce any cogent evidence to rebut the said findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) before this Tribunal but reiterated the same submissions advanced before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of CENVAT credit for incorrect availment on invoices issued by non-existent dealers.
2. Refund appropriation against confirmed demand.

Analysis:
1. The Appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal regarding recovery of CENVAT credit and refund appropriation. The Appellant was alleged to have wrongly availed credit on invoices issued by non-existent dealers. The matter was remanded to examine evidence of dealer existence, but demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. The Appellant argued that credit was availed in good faith and limitation barred the recovery. The ld. C.A. relied on a Gujarat High Court judgment for their case.

2. The Revenue argued that the Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of dealer existence despite claims. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found the Appellant's evidence unreliable, including letters and rent deeds. The Appellant's failure to produce bank statements as promised further weakened their case. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the Appellant had full knowledge of the fraudulent invoices and misrepresentation. The Appellant's inability to rebut these findings led to the dismissal of the Appeals.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and arguments from both sides. The key issue was whether the Gujarat High Court judgment applied to the case and if the demand raised for an extended period was lawful. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant claimed dealer existence from the start but failed to substantiate it with reliable evidence. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found the Appellant's submissions lacking credibility, leading to the dismissal of the Appeals and confirmation of the demand. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions based on the evidence and findings presented.

4. In the absence of concrete evidence supporting the Appellant's claims of dealer existence and genuine credit availing, the Tribunal affirmed the dismissal of the Appeals. The Appellant's failure to provide reliable proof, despite multiple opportunities, led to the rejection of their arguments and the confirmation of the demand for CENVAT credit recovery. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with credible evidence in tax-related matters to avoid adverse legal consequences.