2018 (5) TMI 539 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - fake invoices - refractory bricks purchase from SRPL but delivered directly to RINL (VSP) on a invoice that indicated discharge of duty liability - whether RRL is eligible to avail CENVAT credit of the duty paid by SRPL or otherwise? - Held that - Admittedly, the transaction was back to back and there was no manufacturing activity of the bricks in RRL is factory for which Central Excise duty needs to be discharged - It is settled position, of ineligible CENVAT credit, if any, is reversed of there is discharge of duty liability on the goods which were presumably not manufactured in the factory premises, accordingly there is no need to confirm the demands. The demands raised along with interest and also the penalty imposed on RRL set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged irregular CENVAT credit availed on invoices without receiving inputs
- Dispute over eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on goods delivered directly to another entity
- Imposition of penalty on the appellant and Managing Director

Analysis:
1. Alleged irregular CENVAT credit availed on invoices without receiving inputs:
The case involved appeals against an Order-in-Original regarding alleged irregular CENVAT credit availed by the main appellant on invoices issued by another entity without receiving inputs. The lower authorities contended that the appellant could not have availed the CENVAT credit on goods purchased from the other entity. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands raised with interest and imposed penalties on the appellant and the Managing Director.

2. Dispute over eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on goods delivered directly to another entity:
The main issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant to avail CENVAT credit on refractory bricks purchased from another entity but delivered directly to a different entity. The appellant argued that they reversed the CENVAT credit by paying duty on the invoices, citing precedents where similar actions were deemed correct by the courts. The Departmental Representative contended that the appellant could not have availed the credit without receiving the goods in their factory premises.

3. Imposition of penalty on the appellant and Managing Director:
The Departmental Representative argued that the Adjudicating Authority failed to impose an equivalent penalty on the appellant, citing legal precedents. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had paid back any ineligible CENVAT credit by discharging duty on the goods delivered to the other entity. Relying on a Gujarat High Court ruling, the Tribunal held that there was no need to confirm the demands, and thus, set aside the demands, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant and the Managing Director.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the appellant and the Managing Director, setting aside the penalties imposed on them. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected since the demands were set aside, rendering the appeal moot.