2018 (4) TMI 757 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fake invoices - credit availed without receipt of inputs - the revenue had alleged that the Appellant had shown excess consumption of caustic soda and the same was based upon the ratio of input to output and the opinion of Pulp and Paper Research Institute. Held that - the revenue during investigation had recovered internal record of the Unit viz. MIS, Yearly stock report and also statements of various persons were recorded. The statement of two transporters M/s Capital Roadlines and M/s Pravin Roadways also supported the fact that the goods were diverted - the adjudicating authority has also recorded a fact that the Appellant during investigation did not provide all the copies of LRs or only one sided photocopies so that revenue cannot proceed further for investigation. The MIS reports, yearly stock report, statements of the authorized persons of the Appellant unit as well as statements of transporters clearly show that the Appellants were availing credit without receipt of inputs i.e caustic soda. Even where the revenue could lay their hands on the copies of invoices bearing rubber stamp of other parties in three cases it was found that the goods were diverted to such parties. The Appellant has availed credit without receipt of goods and their consumption - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee-appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged fraudulent availing of excess credit of caustic soda
- Diversion of goods by supplier
- Discrepancies in consumption records
- Lack of submission of LR copies
- Cross-examination requests
- Appellant's contentions against demand confirmation

Analysis:
The case involved allegations against the Appellant for fraudulently availing excess credit of caustic soda. The Appellant, a paper mill, had shown consumption discrepancies in their records. Investigations revealed that goods were diverted by the supplier, as confirmed by statements from various parties and transporters. The Appellant failed to submit LR copies for several consignments, leading to suspicions. The Appellant requested cross-examination, highlighting discrepancies in the evidence presented. The Appellant argued that the demand confirmation was based on insufficient evidence and that the CPRI report was theoretical and not conclusive. The Tribunal noted the reliance on internal records, statements, and reports to establish the Appellant's wrongful credit availing. Despite the Appellant's defenses, the Tribunal upheld the demand confirmation due to evidence showing credit availed without actual receipt of goods. The appeal was dismissed, along with co-appellants' appeals, and cross-objections were disposed of accordingly. The judgment was pronounced on 21/03/2018.