2018 (7) TMI 1203 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs sent for job-work - it was alleged that the appellant-assessee were sending the goods for job work, but some of such Cenvatable inputs have not been received back within the stipulated time - Held that - The goods sent for job work have subsequently been received back in the factory and the assessee has already availed the credit on 31st March, 2007. Revenue have not objected to the said credit - credit allowed. The respondent-assessee has submitted copies of bills, ledger account, proof of payment to suppliers, cash payment vouchers for payment of freight, copies of GR s, material receipt register, ledger account of freight and cartage to prove that the goods had actually been received in the factory - Suppliers of input had in their statements confirmed supply of goods to the assessee - credit rightly allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Cross appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. 29-30-CE/GZB/2011-12 dated 20/04/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Ghaziabad.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Allegation of non-receipt of inputs in the factory
The appellant was engaged in manufacturing Sugar Mill Machinery & Parts, availing Cenvat credit on inputs. Officers noted discrepancies in raw material usage during 2004-05 to 2006-07. A show cause notice was issued proposing a demand of &8377; 42,72,297/- including cess. Order-in-Original confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that documents provided by the appellant proved receipt of inputs in the factory, setting aside the demand of &8377; 41,64,258/- but upholding demand of &8377; 1,08,039/- with interest. The penalty on the firm was reduced to &8377; 1,08,039/- and penalty on the Director was set aside. Both parties appealed, with the appellant arguing that the goods were ultimately received back, rendering the penalty infructuous.

Issue 2: Disallowance of credit on inputs sent for job work
The department's appeal focused on disallowing credit for inputs sent for job work but not received back within the stipulated period. The appellant argued that the inputs were subsequently received back, and the credit had been reversed. The Tribunal found that the goods sent for job work were received back in the factory, and the credit taken earlier was not objected to by the revenue. Therefore, the disallowance of credit and penalty of &8377; 1,08,039/- were set aside.

Issue 3: Confirmation of credit and penalty imposition
The appellant submitted various documents to prove receipt of goods in the factory, including bills, ledger accounts, payment proofs, and statements from suppliers confirming the supply of goods. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to allow the credit and set aside the penalty, leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal and the dismissal of the departmental appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal and dismissed the departmental appeal, setting aside the penalties and confirming the receipt of goods in the factory based on the evidence provided.