2018 (2) TMI 1558 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - denied mainly on the basis of certain irregularities alleged with reference to transportation and non-existence of evidence for transportation of duty paid inputs to the premises of the respondent - Held that - On due consideration of the material evidence which has come on record the Tribunal came to the conclusion that no case is made out to reverse the findings recorded by the Commissioner and upheld the order and dismissed the appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Customs Tribunal order dropping demand for availed Cenvat Credit on raw materials not received by respondent.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal affirming the dropping of a demand against the respondent for availing Cenvat Credit on raw materials not received. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing Cupro Nicle Coin Blanks, availed credit on copper and nickel raw materials. The Revenue alleged that the respondent availed credit on goods not received, initiating proceedings in 2007. The Commissioner dropped the demand in 2010, which was upheld by the Tribunal on appeal. The dispute centered around 18 invoices, with the respondent claiming goods were received from specific suppliers. The Commissioner's reasons for dropping the demand included lack of evidence on non-transportation of goods, absence of discrepancies in stock, and payments made by the respondent for inputs. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, stating no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal by the appellant/department.

The Revenue contended that the respondent used the services of a transporter company, whose proprietor denied transporting the goods. The Tribunal highlighted that the Cenvat Credit denial was based on alleged irregularities in transportation and lack of evidence for goods' delivery to the respondent. The Commissioner's decision to drop the demand was supported by reasons such as the absence of evidence on goods' whereabouts post-removal, lack of discrepancies in stock, and payments made for inputs. The Tribunal found no grounds to reverse the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the lack of material to challenge the CESTAT and Commissioner's factual determinations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The appeal by the Revenue relied on the submission of the transporter company's proprietor, which was based on records from one of the company's offices. The original authority noted that vehicles transporting the duty-paid inputs were deployed by another individual from a different office. The Tribunal extensively discussed the transportation of raw materials, ultimately concluding that there was no basis to overturn the factual findings made by the CESTAT and Commissioner. After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal determined that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the department's appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant/department, finding no substantial question of law to challenge the Commissioner's dropping of the demand regarding the availed Cenvat Credit on raw materials not received by the respondent. The judgment emphasized the lack of material to reverse the factual findings made by the lower authorities, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.