2017 (11) TMI 1167 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - In remand proceedings, it was held that the appellant is failed to prove that they have received the goods, in that circumstances, the Cenvat Credit was denied - Held that - As per the directions of this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, the appellant was required to prove that the goods were duly received by them and used in manufacture of excisable goods. Admittedly the appellant had failed to produce the evidence for receipt of the goods in question. In that circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of Cenvat Credit, duty demand, interest, and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against an order denying Cenvat Credit, demanding duty, and imposing interest and penalty. The case originated from an investigation at M/s Majestic Industries Ltd., where it was found that invoices were issued without accompanying goods, leading to proceedings against the appellant for denying Cenvat Credit based on those invoices. The matter was adjudicated, and Cenvat credit was denied. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to a remand back to the adjudicating authority. The appellant failed to prove receipt of goods, resulting in the denial of Cenvat Credit.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that in similar circumstances, Cenvat credit was allowed, seeking to set aside the impugned order. However, the opposing counsel contended that the facts in this case were different, emphasizing the failure of the appellant to comply with the Tribunal's directions in the remand proceedings. The Tribunal, in the past, had shifted the burden of proof to the appellant to demonstrate receipt and use of goods in manufacturing excisable goods.

3. The Tribunal upheld the initial burden placed on the department to show non-receipt of inputs, shifting the onus to the appellant to prove receipt and use of goods. As per the Tribunal's directions, the appellant was required to provide evidence of receiving the goods, which they failed to do. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The specific directions of the Tribunal in this case differentiated it from previous cases where such requirements were not imposed.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order, as the appellant failed to meet the burden of proving receipt and use of goods. The decision was based on the specific directions given in this case, distinguishing it from previous cases. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.