2019 (4) TMI 19 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - capital goods - Rule 9(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules - validity of SCN - Held that - The SCN is defective for non-joinder of essential parties. Also there is lack of sufficient evidence by the Revenue. Further, the appellant has discharged its onus as required by them under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, as it is an admitted fact that the particular machinery part/capital goods were found available in their factory at the time of inspection. The Revenue has raised the doubt as the said part of Machinery does not have any serial number and manufacturer s name, etc. Further, the appellant has utilized statutory way-bill (Form VAT-47), and has made the payment by Account Payee cheques, both to the supplier and to the transporter. The oral evidences recorded are not reliable, being in violation of the provisions of Section 9D of the Act. The show cause notice is not maintainable as the same is presumptive and more by way of wild allegation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of cenvat credit on purchase of capital goods.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing SS Wire Cloth, acquired two consignments of capital goods from a supplier in Kolkata. The appellant claimed cenvat credit on the duty paid for these capital goods, which were installed in their factory. However, it was discovered that the supplier was allegedly issuing invoices without any physical clearance of excisable goods, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the transaction.

Upon inspection, the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to link the received machinery parts to the specific invoices. Statements from involved parties revealed discrepancies in the transactions, raising concerns about the legitimacy of the cenvat credit claimed by the appellant.

A show cause notice was issued, proposing to demand the cenvat credit claimed by the appellant, along with interest and penalty. The appellant contested the notice, arguing that essential parties were not included, and the Revenue failed to present crucial documents and examine key witnesses during adjudication.

The appellant presented various pieces of evidence to support their claim, including statutory documents like waybills and tax invoices, along with payment records. They argued that the capital goods were specific machinery items for upgrading their manufacturing process, and they had fulfilled their obligations under the Cenvat Credit Rules.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found the show cause notice defective due to non-joinder of essential parties and lack of sufficient evidence by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had met their burden of proof by demonstrating the presence of the machinery parts in their factory and complying with statutory requirements for payment and documentation.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The appellant was granted consequential benefits, including the refund of cenvat credit reversed and the amount paid as interest. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to process the refund within 60 days from the date of the order.