2018 (9) TMI 1201 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - photocopies of invoices - original documents was destroyed due to flood - Held that - The second round of proceedings before the Commissioner, were circumscribed by the directions given in that order dated 3rd May, 2010 for denovo adjudication by the Tribunal. The contention urged by Mr. Dharmadhikari before us, cannot assist the Appellant in the present facts as these were all issues which were a subject matter of the first round of litigation, leading to the order dated 3rd May, 2010 of the Tribunal. Thus, in the absence of any further documents being submitted during the denovo proceedings, the impugned order dated 23rd November, 2015 calls for no interference. The question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order denying Cenvat credit and imposing penalty due to lack of original invoices destroyed in flood.
2. Adjudication of the show cause notice confirming demand and penalty by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
3. Tribunal remanding the issue for denovo adjudication based on the production of additional documents.
4. Failure to produce new documents during denovo proceedings leading to the upholding of the Commissioner's order by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order denying Cenvat credit and imposing a penalty due to the unavailability of original invoices destroyed in a flood. The appellant's factory was submerged in water during a flood, leading to the destruction of records and goods. The appellant informed the Revenue Officer about the damages, and a panchnama recorded the destruction. The appellant faced a show cause notice seeking to deny Cenvat credit of ?71.63 lakhs for the period January 2003 to June 2005. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of ?43.72 lakhs and imposed a penalty, considering that some invoices were destroyed due to the flood, supported by photocopies. The Tribunal remanded the issue to verify additional documents presented by the appellant after the initial order.

2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, on remand, noted that the appellant failed to produce new documents as directed by the Tribunal. Despite claims of efforts to obtain verification reports for other invoices, no additional documents were submitted. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalty, stating that the appellant's sole contention was the demand being time-barred. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the Commissioner's order in denovo adjudication, removing the penalty imposed on the proprietor.

3. During the denovo proceedings, the appellant did not present any new documents as directed by the Tribunal in the first round. The Tribunal found that the appellant relied on previously submitted documents and did not fulfill the requirement to produce additional evidence. The lack of new documents hindered the verification process directed by the Tribunal, leading to the affirmation of the Commissioner's order. The appellant's argument regarding the natural calamity causing document destruction was not considered substantial in the absence of new evidence.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant's failure to produce new documents during the denovo proceedings prevented any interference with the Commissioner's order. The question raised did not give rise to a substantial question of law, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal without costs.