2018 (3) TMI 609 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - case of the department is that the respondents have availed Cenvat credit in respect of 800 invoices allegedly without receipt of the goods - Cenvat credit was proposed to be denied on the RTO report, Octroi report. Held that - The RTO report in respect of only 13 invoices therefore same cannot be used to deny cenvat credit in respect of 800 invoices - RTO report alone cannot be relied upon for denial of the credit. The Octroi report also not conclusive as most of the consignments were procured locally which in any case will not find place in the Octroi records. Other than these material which are not conclusive there is nothing on record to show that the appellant have not received the inputs. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat credit without receipt of goods.
2. Reliance on RTO report, Octroi records, and statements.
3. Disallowance of credit by adjudicating authority.
4. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Grounds of appeal by Revenue.
6. Submissions by both parties.
7. Examination of evidence and records.
8. Findings by Commissioner (Appeals).
9. Upholding the Order-in-Appeal.

Analysis:
The case revolves around the alleged availing of Cenvat credit without receiving goods, based on 800 invoices. The department's reliance on the RTO report, absence of maintained gate inward register, and statements of the company's Managing Director led to the demand confirmation and penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original, prompting the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue argued that the credit denial was justified due to non-receipt of goods as per RTO and Octroi reports. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel contended that the RTO report only pertained to 13 invoices, with explanations provided by the Managing Director regarding discrepancies. The suppliers confirmed physical supply, payment through cheques, and lack of concrete evidence against receipt of goods.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records, noting that the denial of Cenvat credit was primarily based on the RTO and Octroi reports concerning a small fraction of the total invoices. The Managing Director's statement highlighted the lack of a method to verify truck numbers on invoices with actual receipts due to potential transshipment. The Commissioner (Appeals) meticulously examined the case, focusing on the admissibility of Cenvat credit during the specified period. The investigation's limited scope in selecting 13 cases out of 813 invoices raised doubts on the denial's validity, especially without verifying all suppliers or establishing a correlation between vehicle numbers and invoices.

Moreover, the failure to conduct inquiries with suppliers and the absence of corroborative evidence weakened the case against the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of thorough investigations and supplier verifications to substantiate allegations of credit misuse. The local procurement nature of most supplies further discredited the reliance on the Octroi and RTO reports. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the denial of Cenvat credit for the entire period in question, ultimately dismissing the appeals and affirming the initial decision.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of Cenvat credit denial, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive investigations, supplier verifications, and substantial evidence to support allegations. The detailed analysis by the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent affirmation by the Tribunal highlight the need for a robust factual and legal basis when challenging credit availment, ensuring fair and just outcomes in such cases.

← Previous Next →