2018 (7) TMI 516 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - denial of credit based on third party records - principles of natural justice - Held that - It appears that the Central Excise Officers had not examined the documents placed by the appellant. In such situation, the denial of credit on the basis of 3rd party report is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Alleged availing of Cenvat Credit on imports from a company with disputed existence, confirmation of demand, imposition of penalties, rejection of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals), examination of evidences, justification of denial of credit based on third-party report.

In this judgment, the appellant company, engaged in manufacturing Tower and Tower components, faced a Show Cause Notice alleging the availing of utilized Cenvat Credit on imports from a company, M/s. Dankuni Steel Limited (DSL), during the financial year 2009-10. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty, along with interest, and imposed penalties on the appellant company and its officials. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals, leading to the filing of further appeals by the appellants.

During the proceedings, the appellant contended that they had placed orders with DSL, paid for the goods by cheque, received them in their factory, and recorded the transactions in the Cenvat Account. They also presented evidence, including Central Excise Invoices from DSL and a letter from DSL received by the Central Excise Inspector. The department, however, relied on information from the Senior Superintendent of the Post Office to claim the non-existence of DSL. The Tribunal found that the Central Excise Officers had not examined the documents provided by the appellant, and thus, the denial of credit based on a third-party report was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a previous decision involving M/s. Om Shakti Smelters Pvt. Ltd, emphasizing that the facts were not analogous. Consequently, the impugned Order was set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed. The judgment highlighted the importance of thoroughly examining evidence and avoiding decisions solely based on third-party reports without proper verification.