2018 (12) TMI 1235 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs - credit denied on the ground that the said goods in question cannot be the inputs for the appellant M/s. Tharaj to manufacture their final products - Held that - No investigation was conducted at the end of the transporter by the Revenue to prove that the goods have not been received by the appellant in their factory. Moreover, no investigation was conducted to prove that these inputs have been diverted by the appellant M/s.Tharaj in the market and procured bazaar scrap from the open market. As the Revenue has not come with any evidence on record to show that the goods have been substituted by bazaar scrap, the allegation against appellant is not sustainable. As the Revenue has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in support of their allegation, therefore, the allegation that the goods in question cannot be the inputs for the appellant M/s.Tharaj for manufacture of their final product is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat credit on certain goods
- Imposition of penalties on co-appellants

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturing company, appealed against an order denying Cenvat credit on certain goods used in their manufacturing process. The investigation revealed that the appellant was availing credit on goods like bars, rounds, and steel ingots, which the Revenue alleged were not suitable inputs for the final products. Penalties were also imposed on co-appellants.

2. The appellant contended that the goods in question were essential for manufacturing alloy and non-alloy steel ingots and castings, which were sold at high prices to reputable companies. The appellant argued that the quantity of disputed goods was negligible compared to total purchases and that all suppliers confirmed supplying these goods to the appellant.

3. The Revenue failed to provide substantial evidence to prove that the goods were not used in the manufacturing process or were diverted for other purposes. The appellant demonstrated through sales data that the goods in question were indeed used in manufacturing high-quality products, clearing them after paying due duties. The appellant also cited a precedent to support their case.

4. The Tribunal observed that the disputed goods constituted a small percentage of total purchases, and suppliers confirmed supplying them to the appellant. Lack of investigation at the transporter's end and absence of evidence regarding diversion or substitution of goods weakened the Revenue's case. The appellant successfully proved the legitimate use of the goods in manufacturing final products.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the Cenvat credit on the disputed goods and negating the imposition of penalties on the appellant and co-appellants. The impugned order denying credit was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.