2018 (3) TMI 1110 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fake invoices - case of the department is that the appellant has availed fraudulent cenvat credit without receipt of inputs only on the invoices issued by M/s. Parmeshwari Steels, Mumbai - Held that - it is clear that the appellant has not received the input whereas they have taken credit only on the invoices - the case of the department is established beyond any doubt - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Fraudulent availed credit without receipt of inputs based on invoices issued by a specific company.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal dated 6.3.2013, where the demand for fraudulently availed credit was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant did not appear despite notice, and the case presented by the department was that the appellant had availed cenvat credit without actually receiving the inputs, solely based on invoices issued by M/s. Parmeshwari Steels, Mumbai. The investigation conducted by DGCEI concluded that the appellant had not physically received the inputs but had taken credit based on the invoices alone.

Upon hearing the arguments presented by the learned Superintendent (AR) on behalf of the Revenue, the Member (Judicial) carefully considered the submissions and reviewed the records. It was observed that the appellant's case was built on various statements obtained from the appellant's representative and the supplier, M/s. Parmeshwari Steels. The supplier's statement revealed that they issued invoices to facilitate buyers in availing cenvat credit without physically receiving the consignments covered under the invoices. The supplier admitted to issuing central excise invoices without actually consigning any material, enabling customers to avail cenvat credit. The appellant paid the suppliers in full for the invoice value, and after deductions, received the amount back in cash. Further statements from involved parties confirmed that no goods were physically received, and credit was taken solely based on invoices.

Based on the evidence presented, it was established that the appellant had not received the inputs but had availed credit only based on invoices, validating the department's case beyond doubt. Consequently, the Member (Judicial) upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that no interference was required in the decision.

In conclusion, the judgment affirmed the department's findings of fraudulent availed credit without receipt of inputs, based on invoices issued by M/s. Parmeshwari Steels. The detailed evidence and statements obtained during the investigation supported the conclusion that the appellant had not physically received the inputs but had taken credit solely on the basis of invoices, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.