2018 (3) TMI 250 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Revenue entertained a view that out of the total invoices issued by M/s Subhash Steels, two invoices were issued without actually supplying the material reflected therein - Held that - admittedly the appellants have recorded the receipt of the raw materials in their Cenvat credit accounts and have shown the utilisation of the said raw material in the manufacture of the final product - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat credit based on alleged non-receipt of scrap material
- Adjudication of demands, interest, and penalty by original authority
- Upholding of original authority's order by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Appeal challenging the decision of the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:
The case involved the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant amounting to ?41,515 based on the allegation that two invoices issued by a dealer were without actual supply of material. The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant through a show cause notice. The appellant contended that they had purchased the goods, reflected payments in their books, and no discrepancies were found during investigations. They requested cross-examination of the dealer's representative whose statement was relied upon by the Revenue.

The original adjudicating authority upheld the demand, interest, and penalty, a decision affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the appellant argued that they had received and utilized the raw materials, duly recorded in their accounts. The Revenue's case relied on statements from dealer representatives, while the appellant demonstrated proper documentation of material receipt and utilization in their manufacturing process.

The tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence contradicting the appellant's claims of material receipt and utilization. The tribunal highlighted the appellant's proper recording of raw material transactions and utilization in their final product. Reference was made to a similar case decided by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which ruled in favor of the assessee based on comparable evidence.

Ultimately, the tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's position and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper documentation and evidence in cases involving Cenvat credit denial based on alleged non-receipt of materials.