2018 (2) TMI 690 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fake invoices - It was alleged that the appellant did not receive the goods but have taken Cenvat credit on the strength of invoices without receipt of goods - Held that - the Central Excise Officers did not carry out any investigation at the end of M/s Shanker Traders - it is not conclusively established that the appellant did not receive the inputs - the SCN dated 20/04/2012 is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 313/CE/APPL-AGRA/LKO/2015 dated 14/08/2015.
2. Allegation of availing Cenvat credit based on invoices without receiving goods.
3. Confirmation of demand and penalty imposition by Original Authority.
4. Decision of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original dated 17/07/2014.
5. Appeal before the Tribunal challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 313/CE/APPL-AGRA/LKO/2015 dated 14/08/2015. The appellant was registered with the Central Excise Department and was availing the facility of Cenvat credit. The dispute arose when the appellant took Cenvat credit on inputs, Iron & Steel Scrap, based on invoices from a Second Stage Dealer, M/s Shanker Traders, Faridabad. Central Excise Officers conducted investigations prompted by statements from individuals associated with M/s Isha Enterprises, raising doubts about the supply chain. A Show Cause Notice dated 20/04/2012 was issued, alleging that the appellant availed Cenvat credit without actually receiving the goods, proposing to reverse the credit amount. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty through Order-in-Original No. 109-CE/Adj/AC/Agra/2014 dated 17/07/2014. The appellant appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the Order-in-Original in the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 14/08/2015, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the Central Excise Officers did not investigate M/s Shanker Traders. The appellant's statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, indicated that they received the goods based on the invoices and provided payment details to M/s Shanker Traders. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it was not definitively proven that the appellant did not receive the inputs. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice dated 20/04/2012 was not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 14/08/2015 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant was entitled to consequential relief as per law. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, ALLAHABAD.