2018 (2) TMI 1245 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that M/s Sulabh Impex Incorporation has not supplied the goods to the appellant - Held that - in this case, no investigation was conducted at the end of the appellant to verify the stocks. Moreover, Revenue failed to establish the fact that from where the raw material were purchased by the appellant if the goods in question has not been received by the appellant. Further, the appellant was due diligent while receiving the goods as there was no discrepancy in the invoice and the same has not been alleged by the Revenue. During the course of investigation, the appellant themselves has made a statement that they have received the goods and same has been used in manufacture of final product. Thereafter, no further investigation was conducted by the Revenue to establish the fact the appellant has not received the goods. In that circumstances, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on invoices issued by M/s Sulabh Impex Incorporation.
2. Allegation of inadmissible Cenvat credit availed by the appellant.
3. Dispute regarding receipt of goods by the appellant.
4. Comparison with a similar case involving Luxmi Metal Industries.
5. Argument based on the Settlement Commission's decision regarding non-receipt of goods by another recipient.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the denial of Cenvat credit on invoices issued by M/s Sulabh Impex Incorporation, claiming they received and utilized the goods in manufacturing final products. The department alleged that the supplier issued fake invoices for inadmissible credit.

2. The appellant maintained they received the goods, paid through a legitimate channel, and used them in manufacturing. They argued for Cenvat credit entitlement, citing a precedent involving Luxmi Metal Industries where credit was allowed.

3. The Tribunal observed no investigation verified the stocks at the appellant's end, and the Revenue failed to prove non-receipt of goods. The absence of discrepancies in invoices indicated the appellant's due diligence. The appellant's statement of receiving and using the goods was crucial, and no further evidence contradicted this.

4. The Tribunal referenced the Luxmi Metal Industries case to support granting Cenvat credit, emphasizing the need for positive evidence against the appellant. Discrepancies in another recipient's case did not automatically apply to the appellant without concrete proof.

5. The Settlement Commission's decision in a separate case did not establish the appellant's non-receipt of goods. The Tribunal concluded in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, evidentiary considerations, and legal precedents that influenced the Tribunal's decision to grant Cenvat credit to the appellant despite the initial denial based on the supplier's alleged malpractices.