2018 (3) TMI 1049 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - issuance of invoices without receipt of inputs - fake invoices - Held that - identical issue has been considered by the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd. 2014 (1) TMI 1475 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . It stands observed by the Hon ble High Court that in the absence of any alternate source of procurement of raw materials Revenue s case of non-receipt of inputs on the basis of untenable evidence cannot be upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings.
2. Discrepancy in the cause title of the appeal.
3. Allegation of non-receipt of inputs by the respondent.
4. Lack of evidence regarding alternate source of procurement of raw materials.
5. Comparison with a similar case adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings. The issue arose when the cause title of the appeal mentioned M/s Regent Steels Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent, whereas the appeal was actually against M/s Parvati Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. The Revenue sought to correct this as an inadvertent mistake, but the Tribunal noted that the two entities were distinct manufacturing units. The case revolved around the allegation that M/s Parvati Steel had received credit for inputs without actually receiving them from a specific dealer. The adjudicating authority had found no conclusive evidence of non-receipt of inputs by M/s Parvati Steel, and the Revenue failed to provide evidence of an alternate source of procurement by the respondent.

2. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of evidence in cases of alleged non-receipt of inputs. Referring to a similar case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, the Tribunal emphasized that without proof of an alternate source of procurement, claims of non-receipt of inputs based on inadequate evidence cannot be upheld. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and consequently rejected it. The cross-objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of in the same judgment.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the Revenue's claim of non-receipt of inputs by the respondent. The judgment underscored the necessity of concrete proof in such matters and drew parallels with a relevant precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. By thoroughly analyzing the facts and legal principles involved, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal while also addressing the cross-objection raised by the respondent.